Podcasts about plaintiffs

What's up everyone, today we have the pleasure of sitting down with Cara Caruso, CEO and co-founder of Sentinel Insights, and Dustin Taylor, counsel at Troutman Pepper Locke.We'll cover:(00:00) - Cara-audio (00:53) - In This Episode (04:40) - 1 — Why Your Website Is Running More Tracking Tools Than You Know (08:17) - 2 — How a Plaintiff's Firm Turns Your Website Into a Lawsuit (17:55) - 3 — The ECPA Wave and the Privacy Policy That Sues You (20:53) - 4 — What Consent Drift Actually Looks Like (25:16) - 5 — Who Actually Owns Privacy Compliance (30:49) - 6 — The Business Case for Privacy-First Marketing (35:52) - 7 — What Marketing Ops Can Do About Privacy This Week (42:35) - 8 — Why Email Marketing Is the Next Privacy Lawsuit (48:04) - 9 — AI, Consent, and Being Forced to Delete Your Data (51:46) - 10 — Why Small Companies Get Privacy Lawsuits Too (58:42) - 11 — How to Decide What Deserves Your Energy Summary: A privacy-software CEO and a litigation defense attorney walk into a podcast and proceed to scare every marketer in the room, in the most useful way possible. Cara Caruso has scanned over 10,000 websites and found nearly 90% of them non-compliant, while Dustin Taylor has defended more than 100 companies against the exact lawsuits that follow. Together they trace how a forgotten tag from three years ago becomes a seven-figure settlement, why your own privacy policy is the document most likely to sue you, and how one month of a broken cookie banner turns into 10,000 dollars per visitor. Then they flip the whole thing and make the case for why clean, consented data actually performs better. Stick around for the part where your email open rates might be illegal and the FTC makes companies delete four years of data.About Cara Caruso and Dustin TaylorCara Caruso is the CEO and co-founder of Sentinel Insights, where she leads a platform that monitors websites in real time for consent violations and privacy exposure. Before starting the company she spent more than 25 years in data and martech, building and scaling teams across technology and financial services in both B2B and B2C. She pairs strategic planning with hands-on execution, and she's also a certified yoga instructor who has been known to bring a workshop into the office.Dustin Taylor is counsel at Troutman Pepper Locke, where he defends companies at the intersection of privacy law and marketing technology. He's defended more than 100 companies in ad-tech privacy cases involving cookies, pixels, session replay, and website chat, secured dismissals at the pleading stage in federal court, and argued in California, New York, Florida, Texas, and New Jersey. He started out with an advertising degree before law school, which makes him fluent in the martech stack in a way most litigators never are. He also publishes monthly privacy litigation reports and tracks ECPA filings with AI.Why Your Website Is Running More Tracking Tools Than You KnowMost marketing teams believe they have a clean inventory of what runs on their website. There's a tag manager, a cookie banner, a vendor list in a spreadsheet somewhere, and a general sense that someone signed off on all of it. Then someone actually scans the site, and the number comes back two, three, sometimes four times higher than anyone expected.Cara has watched this play out thousands of times. Sentinel Insights has scanned over 10,000 websites in the past year, and the pattern barely changes from one company to the next. Nearly 90% of those sites are not compliant. Every new customer gets the same uncomfortable conversation on day one.The gap between what a team thinks is running and what's actually firing comes from two places. The first is history. Somebody three years ago added a tag for a campaign that ended, then left the company, and nobody ever took it down. The team you have today inherited a stack built by people they never met, and most of those decisions were never written down anywhere. Cara calls it the ghost of marketers past, and it's sitting on almost every site she scans.The second is piggybacking. You buy one tool, drop in one script, and that single tag quietly loads four more. Each of those can load more on top. An agency hard-codes a pixel straight into a landing page because they didn't have access to the tag manager, and now your customer data flows to companies nobody on your team could name. None of it shows up in the tidy spreadsheet. All of it shows up in a scan.This is the part most marketers underestimate. The real exposure comes from the tools nobody chose on purpose, the dozen scripts running quietly in the background, each one sending customer data somewhere you've never audited. They pile up while everyone assumes the banner has it covered. No marketing team actually knows what's on its website until a scan proves otherwise, and "we reviewed it last year" is closer to a guess than a control.Why Not Knowing Is Not a Legal DefenseThe instinct, once you find those orphaned tags, is to assume they don't count against you. You didn't install them. You didn't even know they were there. Dustin spends a lot of his time correcting that assumption. These privacy laws do have a knowledge component, but courts read knowledge very differently than a normal person would. As long as the person who installed the tag three years ago knew they were installing something, the legal requirement is met. The fact that today's marketing team forgot it existed changes nothing.There's a second trap hiding inside the same problem. What marketing knew, what IT knew, and what legal knew are rarely the same thing, and that fragmentation is its own risk. Each group assumes another group is watching the stack. The court doesn't care which department dropped the ball. It only cares that someone, at some point, hit install.Key takeaway: Run a full scan of your live website this month and compare the results against your documented vendor list. Flag every tag you can't immediately explain, especially anything loading third-party scripts you never installed directly. The tools you can't account for are the ones quietly building your legal exposure, and forgetting they exist won't protect you.How a Plaintiff's Firm Turns Your Website Into a LawsuitHere's the mental model most marketing teams carry around: we're compliant until someone complains. You picture a single annoyed customer who takes the time to file something against your little startup, and you quietly decide the odds are low. Who's really going to sue over one text message or one tracking cookie? That assumption is the most expensive thing on your website, because litigation in this space doesn't start with a complaint. It starts with a scan of your site that you never see.Plaintiffs' law firms run continuous automated audits of company websites, and they're looking for far more than a typo in your privacy policy. Dustin walked through exactly what their scanners check:What loads automatically the moment someone lands on the page, before any consent is given, Whether there's a banner at all, and what it actually does, What keeps firing after a visitor opts out, Whether anything is miscategorized, like a marketing cookie quietly labeled "essential" so it can't be turned offOnce a firm finds the exposure, they find a plaintiff. The demand letter arrives, and the dollar amounts climb fast. Cara breaks the pressure into three forces bearing down on marketing teams at once:Trophy-hunting plaintiff attorneys who come after you for small amounts individually, then scale it into a class action, Brand and reputational damage that lingers long after a settlement clears, State enforcement at the atto...

On today's Legally Speaking Podcast, I am delighted to be joined by Bill Reid. Bill is the senior founding partner of Reid Collins, a former federal prosecutor, a two-time Benchmark Litigation U.S. Plaintiff Litigator of the Year, an adjunct professor atthe University of Texas School of Law, and the author of Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiffs' Law. Over the course of his career, he has prosecuted precedent-setting cases and recovered billions of dollars in complex commercial litigation.This episode is not just about plaintiffs' law. It is about how the legal profession defines success, why so many talented young lawyers are funnelled down narrow paths before they really understand their options and what it actually takes to develop real trial judgment in a profession increasingly shaped by leverage, efficiency and now AI.For our UK and international listeners, think of this as a conversation about claimant-side trial work, professional formation, and whether the system is still set up to produce great courtroom lawyers.So why should you be listening in? You can hear Rob and William discussing:- Mastering the human element remains essential for trial success - Prioritising experience over prestige - The traditional legal career model is being reshaped - AI's encroachment exposes the inefficiency of the billable hour - Irreplaceable Human Skills.Connect with Bill Reid here - https://www.linkedin.com/in/williamtreidiv

How many times have you noticed an expert witness for deposition, only to be told you've got to pay their fee in advance, failing which, they say, they aren't coming. As Jim Garrity explains, it doesn't have to be that way. Listen in and learn why prepayment isn't required and how to properly avoid advance payment. After all, those prepayment demands are often excessive, don't explain how the fee was determined, and of course don't guarantee the expert will even qualify as such, much less offer admissible testimony. And we've got a wealth of research for you in the show notes.SHOW NOTESEvans v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case no. 2:25-CV-451-SPC-KRH, 2026 WL 1837154 (M. D. Florida June 25, 2026) (plaintiff's treating doctor, a non-retained expert, was set for one hour deposition, and demanded prepayment of $3,000 for the deposition; held, prepayment is generally not required, “so lack of prepaid fees would not justify refusing to attend the deposition after proper service of a valid subpoena;” further outlining the process to address a treating physician's potential nonappearance at a deposition, asking whether the deposition was subject to the courts subpoena power, and if so, whether the defendant had issued and served the subpoena, noting that the court then need not intervene until (a) the physician seeks to quash the subpoena or fails to appear, and (b) the defendant moves to hold him in contempt for failing to appear to deposition)Johnson v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. CV 07-1874FBJO, 2008 WL 1995117, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2008) (“The pertinent rule thus teaches that once Dr. Seldes has actually “spent” time responding to Spirit's questions at the deposition, he may then bill Spirit for a “reasonable” fee for that amount of “time.” Dr. Seldes therefore may not insist on advance payment, and may not set a flat fee before he knows what he will be called upon to do; he may instead charge only a reasonable hourly fee. I will not predict in advance what reasonable hourly fee Dr. Seldes may choose to request, but should a dispute arise, I will of course defer to the persuasive authority of cases such as the Garnier decision cited above and the precedent on which it in turn relied. See id. at *3-*4 (describing a range of reasonable hourly rates below $500))Conte v. Newsday, Inc., No. CV 06-4859 JFB ETB, 2011 WL 3511071, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (“The rule and the case law makes it clear that the parties seeking court intervention to determine a reasonable fee for an expert deposition should do so retrospectively—that is, after the deposition has taken place. The rule clearly contemplates that a court order will be issued subsequent to the deposition, as it requires a court to order payment of a “reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery”)Tennant v. Handi-House Mfg. Co., Case No. 3:16-cv-1276-J-25MCR, 2017 WL 11105252 (M. D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2017) (Defendant moved for, among other things, order deferring payment for deposition of plaintiff's treating physician, who canceled the deposition because he did not receive the $3,300 payment he demanded for his two-hour deposition; held, Defendant's request to defer deposition fees of the treating physician granted, with the court “finding that prepayment of expert witness deposition fees is inappropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;” noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(E) “does not require the prepayment of expert deposition fees; further noting that the parties agreed that the issues presented are governed by the expert fee rules, implying that a treating physician may qualify as an expert under the circumstances); Court also noted that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E)(i) says that unless manifest injustice would result, the court must require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for “time spent” in responding to discovery; court noted that the deposition had not yet taken place, and so seemed to emphasize that it was premature to determine the reasonableness of payment because the provision talks about “time spent” and the doctor had not yet been deposed”)Regions Bank, etc. v. Kaplan, No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP, 2015 WL 4935694 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2025) (Bank filed Motion to Defer Payments to Experts or to Determine Reasonableness of Expert Charges, where defendants demanded that the bank pay an invoice from TASA Group in the amount of $10,325.29 in advance of the banking expert's testimony, failing which the witness would not appear; bank argued that the court should defer reimbursement obligation pending the outcome of the case, in pending submission of supporting data, arguing that the Committee Notes to the 1970 amendments to Rule 26 say that the court may issue an order to pay fees as a condition of discovery, or it may delay the order until after discovery is completed.; Court noted that “other courts have denied request for advance payment because Rule 26 (small B) (4) (E) does not require it,” citing cases from Wisconsin and California for the proposition that, unlike ordinary witness fees, no rule requires that an opposing expert deposition fees be tendered to the witness in advance)Regions' Motion to Defer on Payment of Experts, or alternatively, to Determine Reasonableness of Kaplan Parties' Expert Charges and Supporting Memorandum of Law (CM/ECF Doc. 435) Regions Bank, etc. v. Kaplan, No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP, 2015 WL 4935694 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2025)Defendant Marvin I. Kaplan's Motion for Approval of Expert Witness Fees and Expenses (CM/ECF Doc. 436), Regions Bank, etc. v. Kaplan, No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP, 2015 WL 4935694 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2025)Parkland Venture, LLC v. City of Muskego, No. 09-C-0972, 2010 WL 4723411 (E. D. Wisconsin November 15, 2010) denying plaintiff's motion requiring the defendants to pay reasonable fees to the plaintiff's experts in advance of taking their depositions; court noted that while rule 26(b)(4)(C) provides in relevant part that in less manifest justice would result, the court shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent responding to discovery, rule does not say that experts fees must be paid in advance of the deposition absent agreement to do so, and pointing out that unlike ordinary witness fees, no rule requires that an opposing expert's deposition fees be tendered to the witness in advance)Kramer et al. v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest, Case No. 8:12-cv-01824-T-17AEP, 2013 WL 12155927 (M. D. Florida April 30, 2013) (court granted Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Dennis James, an expert, finding “that prepayment of expert witness fees, including Mr. James' expert witness in this action, is inappropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court noted that while Rule 26(b)(4)(E)(i) says that in less manifest injustice would result, the court must require that a party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for “time spent” [emphasis added], the Advisory Committee Notes (1970 Amendment) to Rule 26(b)(4) authorize a court to require the payment of fees and expenses as a condition of discovery, and also to delay the order until after discovery is completed. Thus, the court ordered the deposition to proceed but set a payment deadline for his fees within 50 days of the date of his deposition. The court emphasized that - while rule 26(b)(4)(E)(i) “is silent as to exactly when an expert will be paid after responding to discovery, the Court finds that a degree of reasonableness is inherent in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the circumstances of this case, a payment deadline of 50 days was reasonable.)Harris v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 226 F.R.D. 675, 676–77 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (plaintiff's counsel abruptly terminated defense deposition of plaintiff's expert because Defendant would not pay expert witness fee at that time; court, rejecting the manner of termination is improper, said of Rule Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4)(C) that while experts must be paid absent manifest injustice, “The rule does not state, however, that the expert's fees must be paid in advance of the deposition absent agreement to do so. To the contrary, “[u]nlike ordinary witness fees, no rule requires that an opposing expert's deposition fees be tendered to the witness in advance… Because there is no rule allowing a party to terminate a deposition for the failure to pay opposing expert witness fees in advance, Plaintiff's counsel was wrong in doing so in the instant case)Conte v. Newsday, Inc., No. CV 06–4859 (JFB) (ETB), 2011 WL 3511071, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (ruling that a motion seeking prepayment for an expert's deposition was premature because the Rule “clearly contemplates that a court order will be issued subsequent to the deposition;” further saying “Nor, as discussed above, does the rule entitle plaintiff to payment in advance, citing Rule 26(b)(4)(E), which entitles an expert to a reasonable fee for “time spent” responding to discovery); citing Johnson v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. CV 07-1874FBJO, 2008 WL 1995117, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2008) (“[The expert] therefore may not insist on advance payment ....”). Rather, if the parties cannot agree to reasonable reimbursement for plaintiff's experts following their depositions, either party may apply to the Court for such a determination;” “Dr. Seldes therefore may not insist on advance payment, and may not set a flat fee before he knows what he will be called upon to do; he may instead charge only a reasonable hourly fee.”)Conte v. Newsday, Inc., No. CV 06-4859 JFB ETB, 2011 WL 3511071, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (citing Broushet v. Target Corp., ––– F.R.D. ––––, 2011 WL 1750753, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.3, 2011), and saying “Courts consider the following factors in determining whether a requested expert fee is reasonable: (1) the witness' area of expertise; (2) the education and training that is required to provide the expert insight that is sought; (3) the prevailing rates for other comparably respected available experts; (4) the nature, quality and complexity of the discovery responses provided; (5) the cost of living in the particular geographic area; (6) any other factor likely to be of assistance to the court in balancing the interests implicated by Rule 26; (7) the fee actually being charged to the party who retained him; and (8) fees traditionally charged by the expert on related matters”)Ratliff v. Baan Co., N.V., No. 1:99–CV–2455–WBH, 2003 WL 25774909, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 5, 2003) (concluding that after the expert's deposition, the expert can submit a bill to be paid for the deposition)Woodward v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. Civ. A. 97–2062, 1998 WL 158744, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 30, 1998) (denying the motion to set an expert's fee because the motion requests a flat fee to be paid in advance of the deposition without reference to “time spent” as enunciated in the Rule)Burdette v. Steadfast Commons II, LLC, No. 2:11–980– RSM, 2012 WL 3762515, at *4–*6 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2013) (allowing prepayment of expert fees because the parties apparently did not dispute paying the fee in advance)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(E) (payment to experts)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) (protective orders to avoid undue burden or expense)

Stupid News 6am 7-9-2026 …Sorry, but the Plaintiffs did in fact pay for window seats …Everybody Knows, Fat Birds Don't Fly …He cut off his penis and lit in on fire

This Day in Legal History: Vermont Bans SlaveryOn July 8, 1777, delegates meeting in Windsor adopted the Constitution of the Vermont Republic—and in doing so, Vermont became the first place in North America to write the prohibition of slavery into its founding law. At a moment when the newly declared United States tolerated and protected human bondage, a small, unrecognized republic on the frontier put a very different principle on paper.The relevant language was striking for its era. The Vermont constitution declared that all people are born equally free and independent, and it provided that no adult could be held as a servant, slave, or apprentice against their will—specifically, no man over twenty-one and no woman over eighteen. It was not a complete abolition; the age limits meant the document did not immediately free everyone, and enforcement in practice was uneven and incomplete for years afterward. But as a matter of constitutional text, it was the first time on this continent that a government's foundational law declared slavery inconsistent with the very idea of being born free.The context matters. In 1777, Vermont was not yet a state—it wouldn't join the Union until 1791—and it existed in a kind of legal limbo, claimed by both New York and New Hampshire and recognized by neither. That outsider status may have given its drafters room to be bolder than their contemporaries. While the framers of the national government were negotiating the compromises that would embed slavery in American law for another four generations—the three-fifths clause, the fugitive slave clause, the twenty-year protection of the slave trade—Vermont's drafters wrote the opposite conviction into their first article.The significance of July 8, 1777 is partly symbolic and partly practical. Symbolically, it established that abolition was not some later invention imposed on a reluctant founding generation, but a principle that existed at the founding itself, chosen by people who could see the contradiction between declaring all men free and holding some in bondage. Practically, Vermont's provision became an early data point in the long argument that would run through the Northwest Ordinance, the gradual emancipation statutes of the northern states, the abolitionist movement, the Civil War, and finally the Thirteenth Amendment. It's a reminder that constitutional law is not just handed down from the most powerful actors—that sometimes the boldest legal principles come from the margins, from a place that wasn't even sure it counted as a state, writing down what it believed the law ought to be.A former Milwaukee County judge, Hannah Dugan, has been sentenced in federal court after being convicted of obstructing an immigration arrest outside her courtroom—a case that became a flashpoint in the fight over the Trump administration's use of courthouses to stage immigration enforcement. Dugan, who is 67 and was an elected circuit court judge, was found guilty of obstructing a federal proceeding, though a jury acquitted her of a lesser concealment charge.Federal immigration agents came to Dugan's courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican man who was scheduled to appear before her on misdemeanor assault charges. Prosecutors said Dugan directed him out through a non-public “jury door” in an effort to help him avoid the agents waiting in the public hallway. It didn't work—Flores-Ruiz walked through a public hallway with his attorney anyway, and agents arrested him outside after a brief foot chase. But the government charged Dugan criminally for what she did inside the courthouse, and a federal jury convicted her in December.Think about the competing principles colliding here. On one side is the idea that no one, not even a judge, gets to physically obstruct federal law enforcement carrying out its duties. On the other is a real institutional worry that animated a lot of the coverage: if immigration agents stake out courthouses, people with pending cases—victims, witnesses, defendants—may stop showing up at all, which grinds the ordinary work of the state courts to a halt. Dugan's defenders framed her actions as protecting the functioning of her courtroom; prosecutors framed them as obstruction of a federal operation. The jury sided with the government on the core charge.At sentencing, the two sides were far apart. Federal prosecutors declined to recommend a specific term but argued the guidelines called for fifteen to twenty-one months in prison. Dugan's lawyers disputed that calculation and asked U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman for time served—no prison at all. The significance of the case goes well beyond one judge. It's a marker of how aggressively the administration is willing to pursue anyone perceived to interfere with immigration enforcement, up to and including a sitting judge, and it sends a message to state and local officials everywhere about the personal legal risk of getting between federal agents and their targets.Ex-Wisconsin judge to be sentenced for obstructing immigration arrest | ReutersBayer is moving to bring an end to the sprawling federal litigation over its Roundup weedkiller, following a significant win at the Supreme Court. Late last month, the Court ruled 7-2 in Bayer's favor, and the company is now trying to convert that decision into the dismissal of the failure-to-warn claims that have driven nearly a decade of lawsuits.Thousands of plaintiffs have sued Bayer alleging that Roundup, and specifically its active ingredient glyphosate, caused their non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and that the company violated state law by failing to warn them of that cancer risk. Bayer's winning argument was about federal preemption—the principle that when federal and state law conflict, federal law wins. Bayer argued that because the Environmental Protection Agency has concluded glyphosate poses no cancer risk and requires no cancer warning on the label, plaintiffs can't use state failure-to-warn law to demand a warning the federal regulator affirmatively says isn't needed. The Supreme Court agreed, overturning a $1.25 million Missouri verdict in the process.Consider why this is such a powerful tool for Bayer. A failure-to-warn claim says, in essence, “you should have told me this was dangerous.” But if the federal agency in charge has studied the product and decided no warning is warranted, then a state jury ordering the company to warn anyway would effectively be overriding the federal regulator. Preemption resolves that conflict in favor of the federal standard. The practical effect is that the single most common theory in the Roundup litigation—failure to warn—is now largely off the table in the cases this ruling reaches.The significance is real but, importantly, not total. This should let Bayer dismiss current warning-based claims and block future ones, which is exactly why the company is now pressing courts to wind down the federal litigation, and it's pairing that push with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement to sweep in remaining Roundup users. But the decision doesn't make every claim disappear. Plaintiffs may still pursue theories that don't depend on a failure to warn—like defective design—and the settlement obligations remain. So this is a milestone in Bayer's long campaign to contain its liability, not the final word. It's also a notable example of how federal regulatory findings can become a shield against state tort law, a doctrine with implications well beyond weedkiller.Bayer seeks end to federal Roundup litigation after Supreme Court win | ReutersFederal judges are sounding skeptical of a California law that bans employers from forcing workers to attend so-called “captive audience” meetings—mandatory gatherings where a company shares its views on political or religious matters, most often its opposition to unionizing. The law has already been blocked by a district court, and the signs from the bench suggest that skepticism may carry through on appeal.Here's what a captive audience meeting is and why it's contested. When a union organizing drive is underway, employers have long held mandatory meetings where attendance is required and workers listen to management make the case against unionizing. Unions call these coercive; employers call them protected speech. California's SB 399 tried to ban compelling attendance at meetings covering “political matters,” a category defined broadly enough to include unionization. Judge Daniel Calabretta of the Eastern District of California blocked the law, and his reasoning is the crux of the whole fight.He gave two independent grounds, and it's worth separating them. The first is federal preemption—the same principle at work in the Bayer story. Calabretta found that the National Labor Relations Act, which governs labor relations nationwide, occupies this field and preempts California's attempt to regulate it under the Machinists and Garmon preemption doctrines. The second ground is the First Amendment: he held that the law was a content-based restriction on employer speech, singling out “political” and “religious” topics, and that it couldn't survive strict scrutiny—the most demanding test in constitutional law, which almost nothing passes. In his view, banning all speech on those topics in mandatory meetings swept far too broadly.The significance here is that this is a collision between the labor movement's priorities and employers' free-speech claims, and right now the free-speech and preemption arguments are winning in court. A number of states have passed captive-audience bans, so how the Ninth Circuit ultimately rules—California and Attorney General Rob Bonta are expected to appeal—will shape whether this entire category of worker-protection law survives. It's a reminder that even popular labor legislation has to run a gauntlet of federal preemption and the First Amendment, and that employer speech, including anti-union speech, gets substantial constitutional protection.US judges leery of California ban on workplace captive-audience meetings | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Investigative journalists ⁠⁠Mandy Matney⁠⁠ and ⁠Liz Farrell⁠⁠ and attorney Eric Bland break down where the four-month contempt saga stands now that proposed orders are submitted and the decision rests with the judge.  They unpack the bright spots: the deposition happened, it didn't delay the case, and how Greg Parker's team somehow claimed they needed two days for a deposition that was mostly Jim Bannister asking Mandy about things Liz allegedly said… And then they barely used any of Mandy and Liz deposition testimony in their own summary judgment motions to dismiss the case.  The crew also digs into the latest venue change supplement — which now targets Cherokee County and tries to frame Mandy's pink-clad supporters as jury-tainting intimidation.  The Beach family and Team Parker are at the Beaufort County Courthouse this week hearing motions:  - Parker motion for changing venue - Parker motion to elect Tinsley as attorney or witness - Potentially a new Parker 'motion' for gag order on selected media - Parker motion to exclude Vicky Ward + Gregg Roman as witnesses - Parker motion for summary judgement (to dismiss) - Defendants Greco/D'Cruz motion for summary judgement (to dismiss) - Defendants from Private Investigator Services Group (PISG) Motion for Rule to Show Cause (RTSC) for Gregg Roman's deposition 'dodging' - PISG motion for summary judgement - Defendants motion to quash Plaintiff subpoena of Spartanburg PD and AC Hotel Spartanburg - Beach motion for RTSC on Truist Bank - Beach motion for RTSC on Parker and counsel (alleged discovery abuse) Plus, some Taylor Swift wedding news that has Mandy eating crow on her disbelief that Madison Square Garden rumors turned out to be true. ☕ Cups Up! ⚖️ Episode References “UPDATE: 7 shot at Coligny Beach on Hilton Head during July 4 fight” - WTOC, July 4, 2026

Every personal injury firm talks about the biggest recoveries they've obtained for clients. Steven Levin thinks that's the wrong conversation. When every law firm claims impressive verdicts, the firms that stand out are the ones clients believe are authentic, deeply specialized, and willing to think differently. Steven Levin is the Founder and Senior Partner of Levin & Perconti, a litigation-focused firm with 26 attorneys and 50 staff serving clients nationwide. The firm has built a national reputation handling nursing home abuse, birth injury, medical malpractice, wrongful death, and other complex catastrophic injury cases. In this episode, Steven explains why authenticity matters more than advertising claims, why saying "no" to the wrong cases strengthens your reputation, and why specialization changes everything—from staffing to case evaluation. He also shares how AI helps plaintiff lawyers become better strategic thinkers, why defense firms may struggle to adopt it, and how belief can ultimately change the value of a case. You'll learn: Why authenticity matters when every firm advertises high-value results. Why conviction during mediation influences the value of a case. What makes AI for lawyers a strategic advantage instead of just a productivity tool. How consistent culture shapes stronger litigation teams over time. Want your digital presence to match your courtroom authority? See how the team at Rankings helps elite personal injury practices win the long game at Rankings.io. Like what you hear? Hit Subscribe! We do this every week. If you want to keep learning from the best voices in PI, join us at PIMCON 2026. Buy your tickets now! Subscribe to our newsletter and get the freshest news every Monday: newsletter.rankings.io Get Social! Personal Injury Mastermind w/ Chris Dreyer powered by Rankings.io is on Instagram | YouTube | TikTok

On this episode of the SeventySix Capital Sports Leadership Show, Wayne Kimmel interviewed Grant House, Lead Plaintiff in House v. NCAA Lawsuit.House is a professional swimmer, sports law advocate, and graduate of Arizona State University, where he earned a degree in Business Communication before completing a master's in Sports Law and Business. A former Team USA swimmer and multiple-time Olympic Trials qualifier, House has competed at the highest levels of the sport while developing a deep understanding of the intersection between athletics, business, and law.House is widely recognized as the lead plaintiff in the landmark *House v. NCAA* case, which fundamentally changed the landscape of college athletics by paving the way for revenue sharing with student-athletes. His advocacy has made him one of the most influential voices in the ongoing evolution of college sports and athlete rights.Beyond his work in the courtroom, House is passionate about athlete development and leadership. Through coaching, swim clinics, and mentoring young athletes, he continues to help the next generation reach their potential while promoting fairness, opportunity, and innovation across the sports industry.Grant House:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/granthouse/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mitochondria_house/?hl=en

Happy 250th! The bulls are bubbling up! Yentervention – it is a thing. Labor market predictions. PLUS we are now on Spotify and Amazon Music/Podcasts! Click HERE for Show Notes and Links DHUnplugged is now streaming live - with listener chat. Click on link on the right sidebar. Love the Show? Then how about a Donation? PayPal.Donation.Button({ env:'production', hosted_button_id:'JJJHP2GDEJC7J', image: { src:'https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif', alt:'Donate with PayPal button', title:'PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!', } }).render('#donate-button'); Follow John C. Dvorak on Twitter Follow Andrew Horowitz on Twitter Warm-Up - 250 Years! - We have the scorecard - Bulls are on the loose! - Kevin Hassett - what a putz - RAM JOB! Markets - Google's first day in the DJIA - a good one - SpaceX bonds already losing -Yen slips to 1986 levels - Yentervention? WHAT A PUTZ! - Trump Accounts launch July 4, with the NYSE and Nasdaq set to ring the opening bell from the Oval Office. - Program gives a $1,000 Treasury-funded investment account to U.S. children born from January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2028. - Kids under 18 can have accounts, but only newborns in that four-year window get the federal seed money. - Parents, family, employers, nonprofits, and governments can add money, with a general $5,000 annual contribution cap. - Money is invested in index funds and generally locked up until the child reaches adulthood. - Kevin Hassett pitched it as a way to teach kids about markets, ownership, saving, and compounding. His argument is that the more young people get exposed to investing early, and market ownership becomes less of an upper-income club. - However - > the government is handing out taxpayer-funded brokerage seed money while selling it as capitalism. - Also odd: the benefit may skew toward families who already know how to file forms, open accounts, and add more money. - So basically it is a forced financial-literacy experiment wrapped in a political brand name, with a socialist starter check to teach capitalism. First-Half Winners and Losers - S&P 500 finished the first half up roughly 7% to 8%, with the rally led by AI hardware, chips, memory, and data-center infrastructure. - Biggest winners were the shovel sellers: Sandisk up about 780%, Micron up about 296%, Western Digital up about 240%, Seagate up about 226%. - Overseas AI hardware ripped too: South Korea's Kospi up 123%, helped by Samsung up 169% and SK Hynix up 303%. - Semiconductor ETFs had a monster Q2: iShares Semiconductor ETF up 86.8%, VanEck Semiconductor ETF up 64.8%. - Japan's Nikkei rose about 38%; FTSE 100 gained about 5.8%. - Losers were the software/platform names that could not prove immediate AI payoff. - Microsoft was down about 24% despite being one of the biggest AI spenders. - Momentum stocks had one of their worst stretches in two decades as the Magnificent Seven slipped on capex worries. - Crypto and gold also lagged the AI-infrastructure trade. - Equity BULLS are running like it was San Fermin, Spain... MORE.... - Gold biggest quarterly loss since 2013 - Japan best quarter ever - Oil starts and ends - Kospi best quarter in 30 years - Stoxx 600 best Q in 5 years Something is going to break! - When Micro announced earnings, and we see that companies are panicking (News about existential threat to smaller tech players).. We said something is going to break - MU shares lifted to ATH on the news - big big beat - Micron's latest quarter showed a dramatic acceleration from the year-ago period, with revenue rising from $9,301 to $41,460 and EPS increasing from $1.91 to $25.11. - HUGE uptick in guidance - Apple increased pricing, Dell is increasing prices next week (17%), Microsoft raised price on XBox, HP across the board increase, Lenovo/Xiaomi increases, - NOW: Apple is lobbying the Trump administration for clearance to buy memory chips from China's ChangXin Memory Technologies Korea Goes All-In On AI Memory - Samsung and SK Hynix are backing a huge South Korea chip buildout tied to AI memory, HBM, advanced DRAM, packaging and data centers. - Samsung's plan includes hundreds of trillions of won for new fabs, including HBM facilities in Cheonan and Onyang. - SK Hynix is expanding Yongin and planning a major new chip base as it rides demand from Nvidia-linked HBM supply. - Government angle: Seoul wants domestic chip capacity treated like national infrastructure, not just corporate capex. - The state is trying to lock in supply-chain control before China, Taiwan, Japan and the U.S. pull more production into their own subsidy zones. - Market wrinkle: AI memory is hot now, but memory companies have a long history of overbuilding into strong pricing cycles. - Governments are no longer just subsidizing chips — they are helping plan semiconductor cities. RAM Job? - Samsung, SK hynix, and Micron were hit with a U.S. antitrust class-action lawsuit over alleged DRAM price fixing. - Allegation: the big three coordinated supply cuts while shifting capacity away from regular DDR3/DDR4 memory and into high-bandwidth memory for AI servers. - Plaintiffs say the three companies control roughly 90% of the DRAM market. - Conventional DRAM prices allegedly jumped about 700% over four years. - Complaint argues that in a normal commodity market, at least one supplier would usually increase production when prices spike. - Instead, the lawsuit says all three moved in the same direction at the same time. DRAM: We Have Seen This Movie Before - Yes, there was a similar DRAM price-fixing scandal in the 2000s. - DOJ investigation covered alleged DRAM price fixing from roughly 1998 through 2002. - Hynix pleaded guilty in 2005 and agreed to pay a $185 million criminal fine. - Samsung pleaded guilty in 2005 and agreed to pay a $300 million criminal fine. - Infineon pleaded guilty earlier, in 2004, and agreed to pay a $160 million fine. - Micron was involved in the investigation but received amnesty/cooperation treatment rather than the same criminal fine path. - Several executives were also charged or pleaded guilty. - State AGs and private plaintiffs later pursued civil cases tied to overpayment claims. - Difference now: the new case is not yet proven and appears focused on alleged coordinated supply restriction during the AI/HBM boom. Chevron and Microsoft - Chevron Corp signed 20-year deal with Microsoft for data center power. - Agreement supplies natural-gas fired generation for massive West Texas facility. - Project Kilby expected online 2028, ramping to 2.67 gigawatts. - Full output enough to power more than 530,000 Texas homes. - Chevron partnering Engine No. 1, final investment decision planned later. - Deal follows prior reports of exclusive long-term power negotiations. More Oil News - Drill baby Drill - Interior Department cutting federal drilling bonds by 95% to spur exploration. - Required bond drops from $500,000 to $25,000 for leases. - Bonds ensure cleanup costs don't fall on taxpayers if wells abandoned. - Policy change aims to encourage more oil and gas development. - Proposal subject to 60-day public comment after Federal Register publication. Dow 52,000 and the Tech Bounce - Dow closed above 52,000 for the first time Monday, finishing at 52,182.74. - S&P 500 gained 1.18%; Nasdaq jumped 2.07%. - S&P and Nasdaq snapped five-session losing streaks. - Alphabet rose 4.8% on its first day as a Dow component. - Tesla gained 8.5%; SpaceX rose more than 7%. - The bounce came after last week's tech selloff, with investors rotating back into mega-cap and AI names. Comcast Breaks Itself Up - Comcast plans to split media and connectivity into two separate companies. - NBCUniversal and Sky would be spun off in a tax-free deal; Comcast keeps broadband, wireless, and cable. - Completion expected within a year. - Shareholders would own both Comcast and the new NBCUniversal. - Comcast shares rose on the news; Charter also jumped as investors speculated Comcast could eventually pursue a broadband-scale deal. AI Trade Gets a Warning Label - Bank for International Settlements flagged the AI boom as a financial-stability risk. - The main concerns: elevated valuations, investor complacency, complex funding structures, and debt financing across the AI supply chain. - BIS also warned that record public debt and leveraged hedge-fund activity in sovereign bonds could amplify shocks. - Quote from BIS General Manager Pablo Hernandez de Cos: "Policy actions must reinforce each other." - The interesting part: central bankers are not saying AI is fake; they are saying the financing stack may be fragile. Inflation Back Above 4% - BEA's PCE price index rose 4.1% year over year in May. - April was 3.8%; March was 3.5%; February was 2.9%. - This keeps pressure on the Fed because PCE is the Fed's preferred inflation gauge. - Core PCE may later be revised lower because of BEA methodology changes. - Goldman estimated May core PCE could be trimmed to 3.2% from 3.4%; JPMorgan expected 3.3%. - Funny-but-real detail: part of the potential revision comes from how BEA prices portfolio management, legal services, and computer software. Jobs Report Becomes Bad-News-Is-Bad-News - June payrolls are due Thursday because markets are closed Friday for Independence Day. - The setup is awkward: strong jobs could mean stronger economy, but also higher odds of Fed hikes. - Looking back - May payrolls were hot at 172,000 versus an 85,000 forecast, with unemployment steady at 4.3%. - Remember - after the June Fed meeting, policymakers were clearly focused on inflation, not rescue cuts. Oil, Iran, and the Market's New Weird Routine - Oil stayed volatile around renewed U.S.-Iran tensions and peace-talk headlines. - Brent rose 1.6% Monday to $73.15; WTI rose 2.2% to $70.75. - Markets rallied anyway, helped by signs talks would resume and shipping routes were stabilizing. - The odd market behavior: geopolitical escalation keeps getting followed by de-escalation headlines and risk-on rallies. - This is now part of the trading pattern: weekend war scare, Monday relief rally, repeat. --- New attacks by USA on Iran happened at approx 4:30PM on Friday (markets closed) and then a halt to the fighting on Sunday - before the futures opened. Odd : Wendy's Becomes a Meme Stock - Wendy's became the latest retail-trader short-squeeze target. - Stock surged 25% last Wednesday, then gained another 9% Thursday. - Barron's said the move followed a CFO shakeup and WallStreetBets attention. - New CFO Steve Cirulis came from Potbelly and is also taking the Chief Strategy Officer title. - Wendy's had fallen 47% over the past year before the rally. - Short interest was nearly 30% of the public float, making the stock easier to squeeze. - Trian, Nelson Peltz's firm, owned nearly 15 million shares valued around $93 million. SpaceX Bonds Slip After Big Debut - SpaceX sold $25 billion of investment-grade bonds, its first major public debt deal. - Demand was huge, with roughly $85 billion to $98 billion of orders. - The 10-year tranche priced about 1.4 percentage points over Treasurys. - Bonds weakened quickly after pricing. - The 10-year yield rose near 6%, with the spread moving above 1.6 percentage points. - Longer-dated 2046 and 2056 bonds took the most pressure. - The pushback: bond buyers want more yield for a company still funding rockets, Starlink, AI/data-center spending, and Mars ambitions. - Clean read: equity investors bought the story; bond investors immediately marked it down. Yentervention - Yen weakened again, pushing toward the 162-per-dollar zone and near its weakest level in about 40 years. - Japan keeps warning it is ready for "decisive action" or to respond "at any time." - Market does not seem scared for long. - Japan already spent heavily defending the yen, including a roughly $73 billion yen-buying operation after the currency broke past 160. - U.S. rates are still high, the Fed is not rushing to cut, and the Bank of Japan is still moving slowly. - That keeps the carry trade alive: borrow cheap yen, buy higher-yielding dollars. - Japan's foreign reserves fell 5.6% in May after intervention, showing the defense is expensive.   Love the Show? Then how about a Donation? PayPal.Donation.Button({ env: 'production', hosted_button_id: 'JJJHP2GDEJC7J', image: { src: 'https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif', alt: 'Donate with PayPal button', title: 'PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!' } }).render('#donate-button-2'); THE CLOSEST TO THE PIN for SpaceX (SPCX) Winners will be getting great stuff like the new "OFFICIAL" DHUnplugged Shirt!     FED AND CRYPTO LIMERICKS   See this week's stock picks HERE Follow John C. Dvorak on Twitter Follow Andrew Horowitz on Twitter

We take a deep dive into Tyra Banks' defamation lawsuit against Netflix over the America's Next Top Model documentary; Natasha Lyonne worries us with a baffling Tribeca Film Festival appearance; Tracie explains why she thinks Jean Harlow's legend is wildly overrated; and an unhoused woman mistakes Rich's shorts for a very pretty skirt.To access video episodes, bonus episodes and our premium series WAWU check out our Patreon.Tracie's SubstackInstagramTikTok ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

What to do when an organization resists your efforts to conduct a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition by claiming it not only doesn't currently have information on the topics, but that it never had any? As Jim urges you to do in this episode, take the deposition and force the entity's designee to say it entirely lacks knowledge on the topics. Why? Because the absence of knowledge is itself a discoverable fact. And showing that an entity took no steps to become informed on critical matters can be powerful proof of indifference, negligence, or omission. Don't miss this one!SHOW NOTES:Order Overruling Defendant's Objection To Magistrate Judge Vatti's Order Dated February 5, 2026, LaBroad v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-1102 (KAD), 2026 WL 1746249 (ruling that magistrate judge correctly determined “that the purported nonexistence of any materials regarding [defendant's training on parking lot safety] is, itself, a relevant fact on which [Plaintiff] is entitled to develop evidence via Rule 30(b)(6)”)Hepco Data LLC v. Hepco Medical LLC, 2020 WL 1870320, No. 2D19-2134 (2d DCA April 15, 2020) (certiorari granted, quashing order blocking depositions, because petitioners established through filed proffer that depositions were relevant; held, “litigants would never be able to take a nonparty deposition if all the non-party had to do to get out of it is to say that he or she had nothing to say; representations of opponent that discovery isn't relevant need not be relied on)John v. Core Brace, LLC 2021 WL 329460, No. 4:20-CV-00071-BLW (D. Idaho Jan. 29, 2021) (citing Apple. Inc., 282 F.R.D. at 263 for proposition that “A claimed lack of knowledge, by itself, is insufficient to preclude a deposition,” omitting additional citations)United States of America v. Newman, 2021 WL 1026019, No. 19-1868 (RJL) ( D. D. C. Mar. 17, 2021) (sarcastically noting government's proposed stipulation that certain evidence had not moved from its location during relevant time was an unconvincing “attempt to stipulate itself out of [having to respond to] discovery”)Klorczyk v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 3:13-CV-257 (HBF), 2015 WL 1600299, at *4-5 (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2015) (holding that a "we-don't-know" response can be binding on the corporation at trial and prohibit it from offering evidence on those points; if a designee genuinely lacks knowledge, the designee must still be prepared to testify concerning the corporation's efforts to obtain the information and why it lacks sufficient knowledge)QBE Insurance Corp. v. Jorda Enterprises, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 676, 690 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (establishing that the lack of knowledge answer is itself an answer which will bind the corporation at trial; lack of knowledge is insufficient grounds to preclude a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; “The conclusion that the corporation is bound at trial by a legitimate lack of knowledge response at the 30(b)(6) deposition is, for all practical purposes a variation on the rule and philosophy against trial by ambush. Calzaturficio, 201 F.R.D. at 38; Wilson, 228 F.R.D. at 531; Taylor, 166 F.R.D. at 363 (rule prevents “sandbagging” and prevents corporation from making a “half-hearted inquiry before the deposition but a thorough and vigorous one before the trial”).

In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and that aiding-and-abetting liability exists under neither the ATS nor the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991. The decision limits the use of U.S. courts to pursue transnational human-rights claims absent clear congressional authorization.In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), the Court held that the Helms-Burton Act removes sovereign immunity for Cuban agencies and instrumentalities sued for trafficking in property confiscated by the Cuban government. Plaintiffs suing those entities under the Act, therefore, do not need to separately satisfy one of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s enumerated exceptions.Join us for a discussion of these decisions, their implications, and what they reveal about the Court’s approach to statutory interpretation and separation of powers. Featuring: Prof. Julian Ku, Faculty Director of International Programs and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Hofstra University Molly Nixon, Senior Fellow in Executive Power, Cato Institute

Part 4 of Setting Precedent: The Right to Protest on Campus - a podcast miniseries that tells the whole story behind the lawsuit activists have launched against the University of Calgary and the Calgary Police in response to an encampment eviction on the campus back in May 2024.Dr. Roberta Lexier, an expert of student movements in Canada, explains why institutions like the University of Calgary are responding to peaceful protests with such hostility. She provides historical context for the shifting relationship between student activists and their, now "neoliberal corporatist" universities.She's also points to examples from campuses, and makes the case that post-secondary schools across Canada are becoming increasily intolerant of the very activists they helped create. Although the Palestinian exception weighs heavily on how universities (and Police) approach protests, Dr, Lexier talks about many other factors that play into what student movements are up against these days.If you missed the first (3) three parts - they can be listened to in any order.Part 1 featured Dr. Raheleh Tarani and her story of participating in the peaceful protest with her son one minute, and being pinned by police the next. We heard about the impact that had on her, and how she's reclaiming power through the court.Part 2: Liaising with Police - Calgary based activist Wesam Cooley talks about his role as the encampment's police liaison, and what its been like trying to hold police and other parties accountable in Alberta.Part 3: Charter Violations - Legal counsel for the nine Plaintiffs, Chris Weibe, on the merits of the case, what a victory would mean, and what its like going after the state on behalf of activists.Hosted by: Jessa McLean and Santiago Helou QuinteroCall to Action: DONATE TO THE LEGAL FUND FOR THE PLAINTIFFSRelated Episodes: Student Hunger Strike - Its Only a Matter of Time (Apr 2025) UBC & UBCO student activists talk about their hunger strike and other efforts to have their University divest from weapons manufacturers. Holding Institutions Accountable (Oct 2025)More Resources: More of our content is available on our SUBSTACK.All of our content is free - made possible by the generous sponsorships of our Patrons. If you would like to support our work through monthly contributions: PatreonFollow us on Instagram or on Bluesky

Bret Weinstein speaks with attorney, Bobbie Anne Cox on the subject of election laws, voter fraud, and the political landscape in blue states. But first they honor the legacy of their friend, Warner Mendenhall, in discussing the Brooke Jackson case and fraud in Pfizer Trials.Find Bobbie Anne Cox on X at https://x.com/Attorney_Cox and her Substack at https://attorneycox.substack.com. *****Sponsors:Xlear: Xylitol nasal spray that acts as prophylaxis against respiratory illnesses by reducing the stickiness of bacteria and viruses. Find Xlear online, or at your local pharmacy, grocery store, or natural products store.Vanman: Go to https://vanman.shop/darkhorse26 and use code DARKHORSE26 for 15%  off your first order.SaunaSpace: Dark Horse listeners get an exclusive 10% off sitewide at http://sauna.space/darkhorse - now through June 21, every sauna purchase includes a FREE PureLayer bundle featuring an organic bamboo mat cover and three stool covers.*****Join DarkHorse on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https://darkhorse.locals.comCheck out the DHP store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://www.darkhorsestore.orgTheme Music: Thank you to Martin Molin of Wintergatan for providing us the rights to use their excellent music.*****Mentioned in this Episode:Brownstone Institute https://brownstone.org/ In Memory of Warner Mendenhall https://imahealth.org/in-memory-of-warner-mendenhall Brook Jackson's fight against Pfizer https://www.covidlawcast.com/p/brook-jacksons-fight-against-pfizerUNITED STATES OF AMERICAex rel. BROOK JACKSON,Plaintiff,vs.VENTAVIA RESEARCH GROUP, LLC,et al.Defendants https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24362542-2023-12-19-jackson-opp2mtd-final-as-filed/H.R.5546 - National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation HHS, CDC Announce New ACIP Members https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-cdc-announce-new-acip-members-sept-2025.html CPPAC 2026: Bobbie Anne Cox https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p3YItoDArs When Judges Go Rogue https://attorneycox.substack.com/p/when-judges-go-rogue When Judges Go Rogue - Bobbie Anne Flower Cox - The Brownstone Show, Episode 15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVZTHV-bZN8SAVE Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22Support the show

In the case of Jane Doe v. Leon Black (1:23-cv-06418-JGLC), the parties have submitted a joint letter regarding a discovery dispute over Defendant Leon Black's request to quash or modify deposition subpoenas. These subpoenas are intended for three of Mr. Black's attorneys and his wife. The request was made pursuant to Rule 4(k) of Judge Clarke's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases.Defendant has requested an informal conference to address the matter, as provided under Rule 4(k). However, Plaintiff does not agree that such a conference is necessary. This disagreement highlights a procedural conflict regarding how to proceed with resolving the subpoena dispute.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.166.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Welcome to episode 335 of Grow Your Law Firm, hosted by Ken Hardison. In this episode, Ken sits down with Rachel McCarthy, Executive Director of The Milestone Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides low-cost pre-settlement and post-settlement funding to plaintiffs across the country. Rachel shares how the Foundation was created to offer an alternative to high-interest funding models and help injured individuals navigate financial hardship while pursuing their legal cases. The conversation focuses on the role plaintiff funding plays in access to justice and how the right funding structure can benefit both plaintiffs and attorneys. Rachel explains how the nonprofit model works, why the Foundation offers simple interest rates significantly below many traditional providers, and how funding can help plaintiffs avoid settling cases prematurely due to financial pressure. She also discusses the importance of attorney involvement in the process and why firms should evaluate funding options carefully when guiding clients. What you'll learn in this episode: How Nonprofit Plaintiff Funding Works - How the Milestone Foundation provides pre-settlement and post-settlement funding - Why the nonprofit structure allows for lower simple interest rates Why Fair Funding Matters - How high-interest funding can negatively impact plaintiffs and settlements - Why lower-cost funding can improve financial stability during litigation The Connection Between Funding and Case Outcomes - How financial pressure can force plaintiffs into early settlements - Why funding can help attorneys fully pursue case value Evaluating Funding Options for Clients - Why attorneys should understand the terms and costs of funding providers - How different firms may negotiate different rates for clients Why Litigation Timelines Are Increasing - How more personal injury cases are moving into litigation - Why insurance company delays can extend case timelines and increase pressure   Resources:    Website: themilestonefoundation.org LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/the-milestone-foundation Facebook: facebook.com/TheMilestoneFdn Instagram: instagram.com/themilestonefoundation Additional Resources:    https://www.pilmma.org/the-mastermind-effect https://www.pilmma.org/resources https://www.pilmma.org/mastermind

In this episode of Experts Unleashed, I sit down with Lennon Wright, a Houston personal injury attorney who has been practicing law for 48 years — 100% on the plaintiff side, never once defending an insurance company. Board certified in personal injury trial law since 1982, AV rated since 1984, and a magna cum laude graduate of the University of Houston Law Center, Lennon has built a career around cases other attorneys say can't be won. He has twice changed Texas law in favor of injured victims — a distinction held by almost no one practicing today. We go inside the cases that took 8, 12, and 15 years to resolve, the one deposition question that unlocked a recovery everyone said didn't exist, the critical difference between admitted and non-admitted insurance carriers that most lawyers never think to look for, and what 48 years of plaintiff-only work has taught him about perseverance, the Texas Supreme Court, and why he's never once been tempted to switch sides.   

DOCKET ALERTS:   Doofus of the Day: George Santos, who is clearly trying to get himself back into jail. NPR reported that the former congressman bet against his own appearance at the State of the Union in February. After NPR reported that Kalshi had frozen his accounts and referred him to the CFTC and DOJ, Santos called up journalist Bobby Allyn and threatened him with "a gun in your face."   Also seeking a pardon: Sam Bankman-Fried.   Judge Leo Sorokin in Massachusetts blocked Trump's attempt to tax H-1B visas out of existence by imposing a $100,000 "fee."   MAIN SHOW:   Trump's lawyer Alejandro Brito is finding new and creative ways to piss off the judge in Trump's trollsuit against the BBC.   The DOJ is broken! Today's examples include: The DOJ telling the DC Circuit that it would be just fine for Trump to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty. A judge in Rhode Island referring DOJ lawyers for attorney discipline and sanctions. And a story from the New York Times about all the prosecutors who got pushed out because they wouldn't indict Trump's enemies.   Plaintiffs are trying to stop Donald Trump from hosting a UFC fight on the White House lawn.   SUBSCRIBER BONUS: The Department of Defense reduced the number of recognized religious faiths from 211 to 31 — they kept all the good non-woke ones, it's fine. I wrote about George Santos. Then he made a violent threat and lied about it https://www.npr.org/2026/06/04/nx-s1-5846966/george-santos-kalshi-threats   California v. Noem [H-1B visas] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72031571/state-of-california-v-noem/   Trump v. BBC https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72040010/trump-v-british-broadcasting-corporation   How the Drive to Find a Conspiracy Against Trump Rocked the Justice Dept. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/08/us/politics/justice-department-trump-patel-conspiracy.html   Douglas v. National Park Service (UFC) [docket via CourtListener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.293217/gov.uscourts.dcd.293217.3.1.pdf   Forbes, "Trump Says UFC Arena Could Be Permanent At White House—Everything We Know About The Upcoming Event"  https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2026/06/04/trump-says-ufc-arena-could-be-permanent-at-white-house-everything-we-know-about-the-upcoming-event/   Pete Hegseth on the chaplain corps https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4444113/hegseth-announces-reforms-to-chaplain-corps/   Sean Parnell announcement re: DOD religious codes [via X.com] https://x.com/SeanParnellASW/status/2062964159222874227   Pew Research Center Religious Landscape Study https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/religious-landscape-study-executive-summary/   Military.com, "DOD Officially Drops 180 Faiths From Military's Recognized Religion List" https://www.military.com/dod-officially-drops-180-faiths-from-militarys-recognized-religion-list   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod

This Day in Legal History: Madison Introduces the Bill of RightsOn this day in 1789, James Madison rose from his seat in New York's Federal Hall — then the temporary capital of the new federal government — and gave the speech in which he introduced a list of amendments to the Constitution that we now know as the Bill of Rights. Madison had been, until quite recently, a skeptic of attaching a bill of rights to the federal Constitution: he had argued at the Constitutional Convention and in The Federalist that the structure of enumerated and separated powers was a better protection of liberty than a “parchment barrier” of textual rights, and he worried that any enumeration would be read to imply that whatever was not enumerated was not protected. What changed his mind was politics. The Antifederalist opposition in several states had made ratification conditional on amendments protecting individual rights, and Madison — by then a member of the First Congress — concluded that introducing such amendments himself was the surest way to defuse a broader constitutional convention movement that might unravel the work of 1787. The list he proposed on June 8 was longer and somewhat different from what eventually became the Bill of Rights; the House debated it through the summer, passed seventeen amendments in August, the Senate reduced them to twelve in September, and ten of those — the ones we now call Amendments I through X — were ratified by the states on December 15, 1791. June 8 is the date a reluctant convert stood up and made the case that has carried American constitutional law ever since: the proposition that the government's structural restraint is necessary but not sufficient, and that the rights of speech, conscience, due process, and the rest deserve to be written down where everyone can read them.Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on Friday vacated four U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policies that had, since late last year, frozen work permits, green-card adjudications, naturalization, and asylum claims for nationals of roughly 39 countries on the second Trump administration's travel ban list. The case, Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-00132, was brought by a coalition of immigrant-service organizations and labor unions. Judge McConnell held that all four policies — a “Benefits Hold” freezing affirmative benefits for travel-ban country nationals, a Global Asylum Hold halting asylum processing across the board regardless of country of origin, a Comprehensive Re-Review Policy requiring USCIS to re-examine previously approved benefits, and a separate adjudicator-instruction policy treating travel-ban country origin as a negative factor — are unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. The legal hook is familiar APA territory: the agency, McConnell concluded, failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the freezes and failed to account for the substantial reliance interests of hundreds of thousands of pending applicants. What makes this ruling stand out is the remedy. Other district courts that had blocked these policies in the last six months issued preliminary injunctions limited to named plaintiffs; McConnell vacated the policies themselves, which under standard APA practice means they cease to operate nationwide. That puts USCIS in the position of either rescinding the policies, going back to the drawing board with proper rulemaking, or appealing to the First Circuit and trying to get the vacatur stayed. Expect movement on all three fronts this week.US Judge Strikes Down Trump Policies Targeting Immigrants From 39 Countries | US NewsU.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia entered a temporary restraining order on Friday blocking the Trump administration's $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” from disbursing any money while the underlying lawsuit proceeds. The fund — created by executive order earlier this year and funded out of a settlement the administration brokered in the Trump-IRS litigation we covered in early June — was meant to compensate people the administration described as victims of the Biden Justice Department's “weaponization” of federal law enforcement, with the first contemplated payments going to defendants and witnesses from the January 6 prosecutions. Plaintiffs include former DOJ attorney Andrew Floyd and other former federal prosecutors who argue, in essence, that the fund is an unauthorized expenditure of public money: Congress never appropriated it, the settlement that supposedly funds it is itself under judicial review for whether the United States was actually adverse to the President in his personal capacity, and the program's payout criteria are based on political characterizations of past prosecutions rather than any neutral standard. Judge Brinkema's order, narrowly drawn to “ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed,” set a June 12 hearing on whether the freeze should be extended into a preliminary injunction. By the end of last week the situation had escalated further: on June 5 the Justice Department told two federal judges, in writing, that it would stop work on the fund altogether and that the lawsuits challenging it are now moot. That representation will be tested at this Friday's hearing, because the plaintiffs are not satisfied with a unilateral DOJ promise and want a binding court order before they go away. Watch for what Brinkema does with that disagreement on Friday.Justice Department says it will stop work on $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” after judge's ruling | CBS NewsA divided Seventh Circuit panel on Friday upheld Indiana's law restricting who may attend an execution at the Indiana State Prison, holding that the First Amendment does not give reporters a right of access to be present at the execution itself. Judge Michael Scudder wrote the 2-1 majority. The plaintiffs — the Associated Press, the Indiana Capital Chronicle, Gannett, WISH-TV, and TEGNA, represented by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — had argued that the long line of Supreme Court cases recognizing a First Amendment right of press and public access to criminal proceedings, from Richmond Newspapers forward, extends to the carrying out of capital sentences, particularly given Indiana's recent resumption of executions after a long pause and a 2024 statute that omitted journalists from the list of permitted witnesses. The panel disagreed. The majority emphasized that Indiana's witness list — the warden, execution staff, the prison physician, a chaplain, the prisoner's spiritual adviser, up to eight family members of the victim, and up to five unspecified additional witnesses — leaves journalists free to interview those who did attend, report on every other aspect of the proceeding, and comment on the state's choice to impose or carry out the sentence, and that there is no constitutional difference between watching the execution and reporting on it secondhand. The opinion's most striking passage, candidly weighed against the press claim: allowing “uninvited strangers with no immediate connection to the underlying crime” to watch a prisoner die “risks offending the dignity of their final moments.” The dissent argued the press's structural role in informing public deliberation over the death penalty depends on first-hand observation. The split sets up a possible petition for rehearing en banc and, in the longer run, a circuit-split-ready vehicle if other circuits go the other way.7th Circ. Says Ind. Can Bar Press From Attending Executions | Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode, I speak with Rachel McCarthy, Executive Director of the Milestone Foundation, about a challenge that often sits quietly in the background of personal injury litigation: how injured plaintiffs manage financially while waiting for their cases to resolve.Litigation can take months or years to reach a settlement or verdict. During that time, plaintiffs may face mounting medical bills, housing expenses, transportation costs, and lost income. Financial pressure can create significant hardship and, in some cases, influence settlement decisions. Rachel explains how the Milestone Foundation was created to address this issue through a nonprofit model that provides low-interest, non-recourse advances designed to help plaintiffs cover essential living expenses while their cases proceed.We discuss how plaintiff funding differs from litigation finance, why many attorneys remain skeptical of the industry, and what makes nonprofit funding models different from traditional providers. Rachel also explains the mechanics of simple versus compounding interest, the importance of understanding funding agreements, and the questions attorneys should ask before recommending funding options to clients.In addition, we explore emerging regulatory efforts, including new state-level consumer protection measures, and discuss the broader access-to-justice implications of helping plaintiffs withstand the financial pressures that can arise during lengthy litigation.Whether you are a plaintiff attorney, litigation professional, consumer advocate, or simply interested in how economic realities intersect with the civil justice system, this conversation offers valuable insight into a topic that affects thousands of litigants every year.Jump in to hear Rachel's perspective on ethical plaintiff funding, consumer protection, and how financial support can help plaintiffs and their attorneys see cases through to a more appropriate resolution.Tom HagyHost of The Emerging Litigation Podcast______________________________________Thanks for listening! If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps. If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more. Tom on LinkedInEmerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedInEmerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site 

This is Part 3 of our series that tells the whole story behind the lawsuit activists have launched against the University of Calgary and the Calgary Police in response to an encampment eviction on the campus back in May 2024.Legal Counsel for the nine Plaintiffs, Chris Weibe joins us to talk about the merits of the case, and just how people's Charter Rights were violated. We ask him what a victory in this case would look like, for the Plaintiffs AND other activists facing similar situations. Weibe also gives some insight on what its like going after the state on behalf of activists.Be sure to also check out...Part 1: Raheleh's Story - Dr. Tarani tells her story of participating in the peaceful protest with her son one minute, and being pinned by police the next. We heard about the impact that had on her, and how she's reclaiming power through the court.Part 2: Liaising with Police - Calgary based activist Wesam Cooley talks about his role as the encampment's police liaison, and what its been like trying to hold police and other parties accountable in Alberta.Hosted and by Jessa McLean and Santiago Helou QuinteroCall to Action: DONATE TO THE LEGAL FUND FOR THE PLAINTIFFSOther Related Episodes:Student Suppression by Any Means with Jeremy Appel (March 2025)Student Encampments (May 2024) a look at their demands for divestment, the responses from the Universities, the police and the public.More Resources: Calgary Police, City of Calgary and University of Calgary sued by demonstrators - via DrugDataDecoded.ca(REFERENCED) Statement of Claim: May 2026More of our content is available on our SUBSTACK.All of our content is free - made possible by the generous sponsorships of our Patrons. If you would like to support our work through monthly contributions: PatreonFollow us on Instagram or on Bluesky

5.26.2026 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Trump Redistricting Defeat. NAACP Sports Boycott Expands. Clarence B. Jones Remembered. _ For free and unbiased Medicare help, dial (724) 264-8281 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to https://askchapter.org/roland Paid Partnership _ Donald Trump’s effort to pressure Republican-led states into redrawing congressional maps ahead of the midterm elections suffered two major setbacks Tuesday as efforts in Alabama and South Carolina were rejected. The rulings represent a significant blow to ongoing attempts to weaken Black voting power in Southern states through aggressive redistricting strategies. Plaintiffs involved in the Alabama case join Roland Martin Unfiltered to explain why they believe the fight over congressional maps has become one of the most important civil rights battles in America today. The Congressional Black Caucus is now calling on Corporate America to publicly defend voting rights and equal representation following the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Louisiana v. Callais. CBC members sent letters urging corporations to stop remaining silent while Black political power faces coordinated attacks across multiple Southern states. Lawmakers argue that companies once eager to promote diversity and civic engagement are now retreating under political pressure while voting protections continue to erode. The NAACP’s growing sports boycott campaign is also placing additional pressure on states accused of advancing voter suppression efforts. The organization is urging Black athletes and fans to reconsider supporting public colleges in states that continue attacking voting rights and dismantling protections for minority voters. Activists say the Supreme Court’s 6-3 Louisiana v. Callais ruling significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act and intensified the urgency behind the boycott movement. The nation is also remembering the life and legacy of Clarence B. Jones, the legendary civil rights attorney and strategist who helped organize the 1963 March on Washington and assisted in drafting Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic “I Have a Dream” speech. Jones died May 22 at a California assisted living facility at the age of 95. From 1960 to 1968, he served as King’s legal counsel and one of his closest advisers, helping shape major strategic decisions throughout the Civil Rights Movement and standing alongside King during some of the most pivotal moments in American history. #RolandMartinUnfiltered #BlackStarNetwork #VotingRights #NAACP #CBC #Redistricting #Trump #BlackVotersMatter #ClarenceBJones #CivilRights #Mindset #Mindsetshift #MindShiftRevolution Black Star Network Partner: Chapter For free and unbiased Medicare help, dial (724) 264-8281 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to https://askchapter.org/roland *Paid Partnership* Chapter and its affiliates are not connected with or endorsed by any government entity or the federal Medicare program. Chapter Advisory, LLC represents Medicare Advantage HMO, PPO, and PFFS organizations and stand alone prescription drug plans that have a Medicare contract. Enrollment depends on the plan’s contract renewal. While we have a database of every Medicare plan nationwide and can help you to search among all plans, we have contracts with many but not all plans. As a result, we do not offer every plan available in your area. Currently we represent 50 organizations which offer 18,160 products nationwide. We search and recommend all plans, even those we don’t directly offer. You can contact a licensed Chapter agent to find out the number of products available in your specific area. Please contact Medicare.gov, 1-800-Medicare, or your local State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) to get information on all of your options. ____ Download the Black Star Network app at http://www.blackstarnetwork.com! We're on iOS, AppleTV, Android, AndroidTV, Roku, FireTV, XBox and SamsungTV. The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Entertainment Law Update, Gordon Firemark and Tamera Bennett break down major developments in entertainment, media, copyright, trademark, and AI law — including The Onion's attempt to take over Infowars, new fair use rulings, Taylor Swift's anti-deepfake … Read the rest The post Parody, Pastiche & Problematic Plaintiffs – Entertainment Law Update – Episode 191 appeared first on Entertainment Law Update.

A review of Kerry Lutz v. Town of Palm Beach challenging QR-code parking stickers and municipal compliance with traffic-device standards. • Case filed April 23 in S.D. Fla. • Plaintiff moved to take judicial notice of sticker facts • MUTCD adopted into Florida law governs device specs • Plaintiff cites 2004 AG opinion and June 2025 FDOT memo • Evidence includes municipal websites and street photos • Vendor ecosystem centered on One Parking is fragmented • Data-privacy and vendor-accountability concerns raised • Issue: privatization of notice and enforcement     Find Kerry Here: https://kerrylutz.com Get the book here:  No Parking    

In this episode of Experts Unleashed, I sit down with Pedro Krompecher, managing partner of Krompecher Law Firm in Raleigh, North Carolina — the attorney known to his community as Abogado Pedro. Pedro played professional soccer in Belgium, nearly dropped out of law school, spent close to a decade defending hospitals, nursing homes, and large corporations, and built one of the most effective plaintiff trial practices in the Carolinas. We get into what the defense side actually teaches you about winning on the plaintiff side. We talk about his three-dot rule — why plaintiff lawyers who connect twelve dots lose, and plaintiff lawyers who connect three win. We break down the double fatality case he settled on a Thursday before Monday trial by uncovering a buried sensor report showing 170 harsh driving events the defense never saw coming. We talk about what it actually takes to be a plaintiff trial lawyer — risk appetite, competitiveness, a chip on your shoulder — and why most successful trial lawyers were serious athletes. And Pedro shares the one thing about himself that you would never expect from someone who stands in front of juries for a living.   

This is Part 2 of our series that tells the whole story behind the lawsuit activists have launched against the University of Calgary and the Calgary Police in response to an encampment eviction on the campus back in May 2024.Activist and Plaintiff, Wesam Cooley, joins us to talk about the night in question, specifically his role as the encampment's police liaison, and the interactions that led up to sudden escalation of violence. He also talks about what its been like trying to hold police and other parties accountable in Alberta, and what he expects to get out of all of this.Part 1 featured Dr. Raheleh Tarani and her story of participating in the peaceful protest with her son one minute, and being pinned by police the next. We heard about the impact that had on her, and how she's reclaiming power through the court.Up Next (Part 3): An interview with legal counsel Chris Weibe on the merits of the case, what a victory would mean, and what its like going after the state on behalf of activists.Hosted and by Jessa McLean and Santiago Helou QuinteroCall to Action: DONATE TO THE LEGAL FUND FOR THE PLAINTIFFSOther Related Episodes:Student Suppression by Any Means with Jeremy Appel (March 2025)Student Encampments (May 2024) a look at their demands for divestment, the responses from the Universities, the police and the public.More Resources: More of our content is available on our SUBSTACK.All of our content is free - made possible by the generous sponsorships of our Patrons. If you would like to support our work through monthly contributions: PatreonFollow us on Instagram or on Bluesky

The case has been tried and appealed a few times and the 5th Circuit finally said the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation under the Texas state constitution. https://ij.org/

Plaintiffs' antitrust attorney Ryan Downton's five-in-five legal strategy, Pac-12 finances and more.We would love to know what you think of the show and you can let us know on social media @D1ticker.If you are not subscribed to D1.ticker, you can and should subscribe at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.d1ticker.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Thurston County Superior Court Judge John Skinder rejected a lawsuit targeting House Bill 1296, Washington's rewritten parental rights law. Plaintiffs — including school board members and parents — argued the law limits transparency and interferes with parent-child relationships. The ruling is expected to be appealed, and voters will weigh in on a ballot initiative this November. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/judge-rejects-lawsuit-against-rewrite-of-wa-parental-rights-law/ #HouseBill1296 #ParentalRights #WashingtonState #PublicSchools #Education #Politics ---

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW! The individual plaintiff behind the explosive Virginia gun ban lawsuit joins Armed American Radio LIVE to break down the legal battle that could reshape the future of the Second Amendment nationwide. John Crump — AmmoLand writer, Virginia resident, and named plaintiff in the newly filed lawsuit — explains why gun owners in Virginia are fighting back against what he calls “tyrannical” and “draconian” anti-Second Amendment laws. The discussion dives deep into the constitutional strategy behind the lawsuit, the political climate in Loudoun County, Virginia, and why this fight could become one of the most important 2A legal battles in America. The conversation covers: • Virginia gun ban lawsuit• Second Amendment legal strategy• Virginia Constitution gun rights protections• Loudoun County politics and gun control• AR-15 bans and SCOTUS implications• Harmeet Dhillon and DOJ involvement• Heller and Bruen Supreme Court precedents• Constitutional rights vs election politics• Gun rights activism in Virginia• Anti-gun legislation and legal challenges• Virginia Democrats and firearm restrictions• Why gun owners are fighting back NOW

Agriculture Department employees are suing Secretary Brooke Rollins over what they are calling “coercive” religious messaging. The lawsuit comes in response to an Easter message that Rollins sent to 100,000 department employees. Plaintiffs say her email implies an “in-group” religion at USDA and that those who don't agree may face “negative consequences.” Here with more, Federal News Network's Drew Friedman.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

We Like Shooting - Ep 662 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Midwest Industries (Code: WLSISLIFE) Die Free Co. (Code: WLSISLIFE) Bowers Group (Code: WLS) Otis Technology (Code: WELIKESHOOTING15) Flatline Fiber Co (Code: WLS15) Text Dear WLS or Reviews +1 743 500 2171  Public   Show Titles   GOA GOALS Aug 1-2 in Iowa. https://goals.goa.org/ GunCon.net Tickets on sale now. Use code AGENCY171 GEAR CHAT [XTech Tactical] LDR2000 B1 The LDR2000 B1 is a magazine speed loader designed specifically for the Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 2.0 .380 ACP micro-compact pistol, addressing the stiff single-stack magazines' loading difficulties by making the process faster, easier, and thumb-friendly. It slips easily over factory or aftermarket .380 magazines, allowing users to load rounds smoothly with minimal effort using just a finger and thumb, while protecting magazine feed lips, preventing ammunition damage, and reducing hand strain. Key features include loading magazines in 30 seconds or less, compact and lightweight design for easy carrying, durable injection molded polymer construction, and a utility patent pending. [Mitchell Defense] DualCool CP1 Handguard (Nick) The DualCool™ CP1 Handguard is the first 3D-printed, dual-layer AR-15 handguard engineered for extreme thermal control, built with CP1 alloy and featuring an air-gap core that slows heat transfer to keep the outer shell cool longer and cooling faster between shots. It includes integrated grip texture 3D-printed into the alloy for maximum control without compromising M-LOK or Picatinny function, along with reinforced M-LOK slots and a full-length Picatinny top rail.0 BULLET POINTS PSA: You absolutely can get your EFT from those “services.” (Nick)   Note (Nick) Match Recap GUNDERWEAR Concealed Carry Underwear GUNDERWEAR is a patented underwear product designed to improve comfort for concealed carry, particularly appendix carry, by integrating padding as a barrier between the body and gun/holster. Developed by Tyler Abadie, it prevents rubbing, stabbing, and irritation during prolonged wear in activities like security work, driving, and daily tasks. Available for men and women, it has received positive feedback from civilians and professionals in law enforcement and military. GUN FIGHTS No one stepped into the arena this week. WLS IS LIFESTYLE Imported Story https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYHcS-OuFv1/?igsh=bjJhank2dG02dHJw GOING BALLISTIC Bergmann-Schoch v. Davenport: New Jersey's Hollow-Point Ammunition Ban Challenged Under Second Amendment A lawsuit in New Jersey challenges the state's prohibition on hollow-point ammunition as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs argue the ban creates a Catch-22 by allowing only full metal jacket rounds while denying the right to ‘military arms.' The state's motion to dismiss is rebutted, dismissing historical analogies as rooted in racial prejudice. Hawaii Legislature Adjourns Sine Die: Defeat of Anti-Gun Bills HB2062, SB2503, SB2517, SB2575, SB2576, SB2720 The Hawaii State Legislature adjourned sine die on May 8, 2026, resulting in the defeat of several anti-gun bills aimed at expanding red flag laws, funding gun buybacks, elevating penalties, broadening prohibited persons lists, and creating a firearm injury restitution fund. These measures raised due process concerns by potentially suspending Second Amendment rights via civil proceedings and imposing felony penalties without full evidentiary hearings. NRA-ILA credits NRA members and supporters for contacting lawmakers to secure this victory. NBC News Report on Kyle Rittenhouse Spider Bite (Kenosha, Wisconsin Case) NBC News tweeted about Kyle Rittenhouse's hospitalization from a venomous spider bite, framing his 2020 Kenosha, Wisconsin self-defense shootings as ‘opening fire at a 2020 civil rights rally.' The Bearing Arms article criticizes this as biased misrepresentation, omitting the riot context and Rittenhouse's acquittal on self-defense grounds. It argues this exemplifies media disinformation against gun owners and Second Amendment supporters. Mississippi DeSoto County Billboard: ‘Firing Squad Is Legal. Think Twice' A billboard in DeSoto County, Mississippi, next to I-55 warns would-be criminals that ‘Firing Squad Is Legal. Think Twice.' DeSoto County District Attorney Matthew Barton states it promotes aggressive prosecution of violent criminals entering the state. The message emphasizes that Mississippi does not coddle violent crime and firing squad executions are legal there. Harmeet Dhillon: The Term ‘Assault Weapons' Is ‘Just a Made-Up Category' Harmeet Dhillon describes ‘assault weapons' as a made-up category and epithet applied to effective and popular firearms like the AR-15. The term originated from Democrats in the 1990s for a federal ban from 1994 to 2004, which a study found did not reduce gun crime or violence lethality. Discussion references national federal policy and Denver's local ban. United Gun Shop v. Capital One and Melio (Maryland) United Gun Shop, a Maryland FFL gun dealer, filed a lawsuit against Capital One and Melio after being denied access to Capital One's bill-paying service, citing the business as a ‘restricted industry.' Payments worked from December 2024 until March 2025, followed by deplatforming and formal denial in March 2026. The suit invokes President Trump's August 2025 Executive Order ‘Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,' addressing discrimination against lawful firearm businesses. REVIEWS Review: A in your face 5 squares. I disagree what a lot of what they say, but damnit if I also dont find myself agreeing with a lot of what they say. Always entertaining, rarely boring, definitely infuriating – especially when Aaron digs in on something. And one of the few places where the advertisers are actually vetted, with actual use experience reviews, and honesty when things go down. Review: FedsRGay 5 stars. A sad sack Jew, a retard with anger issues, a man with a blownout Anus, a communist thumb and their slightly weird uncle from Colorado walk into a podcast studio. This is not a joke about the special Olympic's or the Democratic Party! This is the cast of the number one rated gun podcast on the firearms radio network! This dumpster fire is wildly entertaining and sometimes even educational. Occasionally they have cool sponsors on the show that seem slightly less retardy. Quality entertainment overall. I give it a solid 5 squares. PS: Jeremey is not a cunt. But AA ron is. PPS: I wrote this review once before but baguettes on iTunes didn't publish it. PPPS: no notes PPPPS: I love you guys, say it back Review: Anonymous Coward from Wisconsin I left a review Before we let you go – JOIN GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA We'd love if you supported the show, join Agency 171 at agency171.com. Lot's of prizes, rewards and kick ass swag. No matter how tough your battle is today, we want you here fight with us tomorrow. Don't struggle in silence, you can contact the suicide prevention line by dialing 988 from your phone. Remember – Always prefer Dangerous Freedom over peaceful slavery. We'll see you next time! Nick – @busbuiltsystems | Bus Built Systems Jeremy – @ret_actual | Rivers Edge Tactical Aaron – @machinegun_moses Savage – @savage1r Shawn – @dangerousfreedomyt | @camorado.cam | Camorado

This Day in Legal History: Christmas is Canceled in MassachusettsOn May 11, 1659, the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed a law making it illegal to celebrate Christmas. The law imposed a fine of five shillings on anyone who observed the holiday by feasting, taking the day off from work, or engaging in other forms of celebration. To modern readers, this can sound like a strange kind of anti-holiday law, but it reflected the religious and legal culture of Puritan New England. Many Puritans rejected Christmas because they believed it had no clear biblical foundation and was associated with Catholic tradition, disorderly public behavior, and old English customs they considered improper. In their view, the law was not merely about stopping a party; it was about enforcing a disciplined religious society.The colony's leaders used law as a tool to shape public morality, religious practice, and daily life. This was common in early colonial legal systems, where civil authority and religious authority were often closely connected. The Christmas ban also shows how different early American ideas of “religious liberty” could be from later constitutional understandings. Rather than protecting a broad right to celebrate or worship differently, the Massachusetts Bay Colony often used law to preserve a particular religious order. The five-shilling fine was not enormous, but it was meaningful enough to signal that Christmas observance was legally disfavored.The law remained part of a broader colonial effort to regulate conduct that officials believed threatened communal discipline. Over time, attitudes toward Christmas changed, especially as New England became more religiously diverse and less strictly Puritan. The episode stands as a reminder that American legal history includes not only the expansion of rights, but also earlier moments when law was used to suppress customs now considered ordinary.The legal industry added 2,400 jobs in April, bringing total sector employment to about 1.24 million, according to seasonally adjusted data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That was a rebound from a small decline in March and placed legal employment slightly above both March and February levels. Compared with the same time last year, the sector had 20,800 more jobs. The legal sector numbers include lawyers, paralegals, and other legal-related professional roles.The rebound follows a long stretch of legal industry growth that was interrupted by March's dip. Two major firms recently announced job cuts: McDermott Will & Schulte is trimming a small number of associates, while Allen Overy Shearman Sterling is reducing roles in its business services team. Across the broader U.S. economy, employers added 115,000 jobs in April, while the unemployment rate stayed at 4.3%.Legal Industry Bounces Back, Gaining 2,400 Jobs In April - Law360Virginia's Supreme Court struck down a Democratic-backed congressional map that had been designed to improve the party's chances in four Republican-held U.S. House districts. The court ruled 4-3 that Democratic lawmakers failed to follow the proper process when they moved quickly to put the redistricting plan before voters. The map had been approved by voters in an April special election, but Republicans challenged the measure, arguing that the required intervening election had not properly occurred before the second legislative approval. The court's majority agreed, emphasizing that more than 1.3 million early votes had already been cast by the time lawmakers first approved the proposed constitutional amendment.Democrats criticized the ruling as overriding the will of voters, while Republicans celebrated it as a major win ahead of the midterm elections. Virginia Democrats said they would seek emergency review from the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling could make it harder for Democrats to regain control of the U.S. House, where Republicans hold a very narrow majority. The dispute is part of a broader national fight over mid-cycle redistricting, with both parties seeking favorable maps before the November elections. Republican-led states in the South are pursuing their own redistricting efforts after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision weakened a key part of the Voting Rights Act. Election analyst Kyle Kondik said the Virginia ruling improves Republican odds, though broader political conditions could still affect the outcome in November.Virginia court tosses Democratic map, dealing major blow to party's midterm hopes | ReutersInstructure, the company behind the Canvas learning management platform, is facing at least seven proposed class actions after disclosing unauthorized activity in its system. Canvas is widely used by schools and universities to manage coursework, grades, assignments, and communications. Instructure first announced the incident on May 1, then later reported more unauthorized activity connected to the same breach and temporarily took Canvas offline. The company has since restored much of the platform, but its Free-for-Teacher accounts remain disabled because Instructure believes a vulnerability there may have been exploited.The lawsuits, filed in Utah and New York federal courts, accuse Instructure of failing to adequately protect personal information belonging to students, teachers, and staff. The data allegedly at risk includes names, email addresses, student ID numbers, private messages, enrolled courses, and confidential communications with teachers. The complaints say the hacking group ShinyHunters claimed to have accessed information tied to more than 275 million users.Plaintiffs argue Instructure should have used stronger safeguards, including better encryption, access controls, employee training, monitoring, and protocols for handling sensitive data. They also claim affected users now face loss of control over their information and a heightened risk of identity theft. One New York plaintiff also sued KKR, which acquired Instructure in 2024, and argued the breach was foreseeable in light of earlier major attacks on education software companies. Instructure has said it is investigating, communicating with affected customers, and strengthening protections around access, permissions, token management, monitoring, and related workflows.EdTech Platform Canvas Accused Of Lax Security After Breach - Law360The Trump administration appealed a U.S. Court of International Trade ruling that rejected its use of a 1970s trade law to impose a 10% global tariff. The court ruled 2-1 that Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not designed to address trade deficits caused by the United States importing more goods than it exports. The decision only blocked the tariffs as applied to the three plaintiffs who sued: two small businesses and the state of Washington. Even though the tariffs were temporary and set to expire in July unless Congress extended them, the ruling marked another legal setback for the administration's broader tariff agenda.The case followed a separate Supreme Court decision that invalidated earlier Trump tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. After that loss, the administration turned to Section 122 as a replacement authority for a 10% import tariff. President Trump criticized the trade court's ruling, while U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the administration expected to win on appeal. The dispute could lead to another major fight over tariff refunds, potentially involving billions of dollars. The timing is also significant because the ruling came shortly before Trump was scheduled to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping to discuss trade tensions.The administration is separately pursuing broader tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act, which addresses unfair trade practices and has survived past legal challenges.Trump administration appeals latest court loss on tariffs | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Salmon P. Chase DiesOn May 7, 1873, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase died, ending one of the most unusual legal and political careers in American history. Chase had been an antislavery lawyer, a U.S. senator, governor of Ohio, Abraham Lincoln's secretary of the Treasury, and then Chief Justice of the United States. He was also one of the many talented and ambitious men around Lincoln who did not begin as an admirer of him. Before Lincoln became president, Chase had encountered him as a lawyer and reportedly did not think much of him, viewing him as a rough western attorney rather than a national figure. After Lincoln defeated him for the Republican nomination in 1860, Chase had reason to believe a summons to the White House might be an occasion for Lincoln to enjoy the victory. Instead, Lincoln offered him one of the most important jobs in the government: secretary of the Treasury.It was a revealing moment in Lincoln's political genius, because he was willing to place a rival who had underestimated him in a position of enormous responsibility during the Civil War. Chase helped finance the Union war effort and became closely associated with the creation of a national banking system and the issuance of paper currency. In 1864, Lincoln elevated him again by appointing him Chief Justice of the United States.As Chief Justice, Chase presided over the 1868 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, a major constitutional test of presidential power and congressional authority. Near the end of his life, Chase dissented in the Slaughter-House Cases, one of the first major Supreme Court interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's majority read the Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause narrowly, limiting a provision that many had hoped would become a strong source of federal protection for civil rights. Chase's dissent placed him on the side of a broader understanding of Reconstruction's constitutional promise. His death mattered not only because of the offices he held, but because it came at a moment when the Supreme Court was deciding whether the Civil War amendments would transform American law or be read down almost as soon as they were adopted.Apple customers have asked a California federal judge to preliminarily approve a proposed $250 million settlement over claims that Apple overstated the artificial intelligence features available on the iPhone 16. The proposed class includes people who bought any iPhone 16 model or certain iPhone 15 models between June 10, 2024, and March 29, 2025. The customers allege Apple advertised enhanced Siri capabilities as part of its Apple Intelligence rollout even though those features were not yet available. Under the settlement, eligible class members who submit valid claims would receive $25 per device, with payments possibly rising to $95 per device depending on participation. Apple is also expected to provide additional Siri-related Apple Intelligence updates in the future at no extra cost.The plaintiffs said settlement made sense because AI-related consumer claims are still legally novel and would carry risk if the case continued. Apple had argued that its marketing was not deceptive because it had already released many Apple Intelligence features and had disclosed that other features would arrive over time. The case began in March 2025 and later became part of a consolidated set of related lawsuits in the Northern District of California. The parties conducted discovery, consulted experts, and participated in three full-day mediation sessions before reaching the proposed deal. Plaintiffs' lawyers plan to seek up to $70 million in fees, plus up to $600,000 in expenses. The settlement does not resolve separate securities or shareholder cases claiming Apple misled investors about the timing of the Siri rollout. Apple said it settled to remain focused on developing products and services, while maintaining that it has already introduced numerous Apple Intelligence tools.Apple Reaches $250M Deal Over Claims It Overhyped IPhone AI - Law360Bayer has agreed to acquire Perfuse Therapeutics, a San Francisco biopharma company, in a deal worth up to $2.45 billion. The transaction gives Bayer full rights to PER-001, a drug candidate in phase-two clinical development for glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy. Bayer will pay $300 million upfront, with the rest tied to development, regulatory, and sales milestones. Perfuse focuses on treatments that improve blood flow to the retina, with the goal of addressing conditions that can lead to blindness. Bayer said the acquisition strengthens its ophthalmology pipeline and supports its effort to develop new therapies for serious eye diseases.The deal is being handled legally by Baker McKenzie for Bayer, with partners Alan Zoccolillo, Oren Livne, and Jieun Tak leading the team. Goodwin Procter is advising Perfuse. The transaction still needs antitrust clearance and approval from Perfuse shareholders. Bayer is being advised financially by BofA Securities, while Centerview Partners is advising Perfuse. Bayer and Perfuse said glaucoma could affect about 112 million people by 2040, while diabetic retinopathy could affect 160 million people by 2045.Baker McKenzie-Led Bayer To Buy Perfuse For Up To $2.45B - Law360 UKThe California Supreme Court is considering whether drugmakers can be held legally responsible for stopping development of a potentially safer drug while continuing to sell an already-approved medication. The case involves Gilead Sciences and roughly 24,000 HIV patients who took drugs containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, or TDF. TDF-based drugs received FDA approval in 2001, but they were associated with possible kidney and bone side effects. Gilead later began developing a related drug, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, or TAF, which patients say had fewer side effects. The company stopped developing TAF in 2004, arguing that it was not different enough from TDF to justify further investment.The patients claim Gilead delayed TAF for business reasons, including to protect TDF sales and time TAF's release around the expiration of TDF patents. Gilead argues that allowing the negligence claims to proceed would punish companies for researching possible improvements and could discourage innovation. The company says the lower court rulings effectively create a “duty to innovate,” even when the drug already on the market is not alleged to be defective. The patients respond that the case is not about forcing endless research, but about whether Gilead unreasonably delayed a safer alternative for profit. A ruling for the patients could expand product-liability exposure for pharmaceutical companies, while a ruling for Gilead could limit claims based on decisions not to commercialize drugs still in development.California's highest court to consider whether drugmakers have ‘duty to innovate' | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Pete Hegseth lied to Congress while 175 dead kids cooled in the rubble. Trump lost to Iran. Comey got indicted for a tweet. The Defense Secretary is a fascist with crusader tattoos. None of this is hyperbole. It's the record. *In this episode:* • Hegseth caught lying under oath about the war with Iran • A Tomahawk killed 175 children in an elementary school • His own mother called him a serial abuser — in writing • Trump threatens to yank 35,000 troops from Germany • Comey indicted by Trump's hand-picked prosecutor • Seth Moulton names the war crime: "no quarter" Key figures: Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump, James Comey, Adam Smith, Seth Moulton, Friedrich Merz, Todd Blanche

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 174 of our podcast IP Fridays! In today's interview, Ken Suzan interviews Brian McGinnis, partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice, about why companies need to stop treating data privacy as a compliance burden and start treating it as a core business asset. McGinnis argues that data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability, with no middle ground. But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! The EPO saw a Record Year with 200,000+ Patent Applications in 2025: German filings dropped 2.2% while China grew 9.7%, overtaking Japan for the first time. Germany remains Europe’s top patent nation but loses ground globally. SMEs and universities now account for nearly half of all Unitary Patents granted to European innovators. News from the UPC Court of Appeal: Non-Technical Features Count for Inventive Step. An April 17 ruling clarifies that all claim features must be evaluated in their combined effect, including non-technical ones. Companies with software-related or mixed-technology inventions pending at the EPO or UPC should reassess recent inventive step objections at the UPC in light of this decision. Nokia Withdraws UPC and Munich Suits After Global FRAND Settlement; Following a global FRAND rate-setting decision by the UK High Court, Nokia withdrew parallel suits against Warner Bros. and Paramount at the UPC and in Munich. One UK ruling resolved litigation spanning Germany, the UPC, the US, and Brazil simultaneously. China Abandons Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP Disputes: After a WTO arbitration ruling from July 2025, China withdrew its practice of blocking SEP holders from filing suits abroad. The EU Commission continues monitoring compliance, since the former policy was largely informal rather than codified in statute. The Trump Administration has put 100% Tariffs on Imported Patented Pharmaceuticals: Based on Section 232, the Trump administration imposed 100% tariffs on patented drugs and biologics effective April 2, 2026, with a 120-day transition period until July 31. EU member states face a reduced rate of 15%. Generics and biosimilars are explicitly excluded. China Rejects 1.27 Million Trademark Applications in Three-Year Crackdown: China’s CNIPA rejected over 1.27 million trademark applications and invalidated more than 3,300 marks, targeting so-called edge-ball marks designed to mislead consumers about product quality or origin. The announcement was made at an official press conference on April 23, 2026. Now let's jump into the interview with Brian McGinnis! Brian McGinnis is a partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice. In this episode of IP Fridays, he argues that companies treating data privacy as a compliance burden are missing the point entirely and leaving significant value on the table. Data Is Either an Asset or a Liability Most companies still treat their data as invisible and costless. They do not manage it the way they would manage a patent portfolio or a trademark. That, McGinnis argues, is a fundamental strategic error. Data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability. There is no middle ground. When companies invest in understanding what data they collect, how it is used, and who has access to it, they unlock opportunities to drive real revenue and growth. Done right, a data governance program is not a cost center. It is a foundation for trust, operational efficiency, and competitive advantage. One Program, Not Twenty With more than 20 US state privacy laws now in effect, and major economies worldwide introducing their own frameworks, building separate compliance programs for each jurisdiction is neither practical nor smart. McGinnis recommends a single, comprehensive governance framework designed around the core purpose and intent of privacy law, flexible enough to absorb new requirements as they emerge. Companies that threw together a quick program when California’s CCPA came into force in 2020 are now overdue for an upgrade. The goal is to move from reactive compliance to a mature, proactive program that positions the company ahead of the regulatory curve rather than perpetually catching up. Website Tracking Tools: An Underestimated Risk One of the fastest-growing areas of privacy litigation involves tracking technologies built into company websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, and chat widgets. Legal teams are often entirely unaware of what IT or marketing has deployed. That gap is expensive. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are applying 1970s-era telephone wiretapping statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, to argue that collecting any personal information, including IP addresses, before a user has consented constitutes illegal interception. Demand letters are being sent at industrial scale, with settlements typically running between $10,000 and $20,000 per case. What makes this particularly difficult is that a company can be fully compliant with statutory privacy law and still face these wiretapping claims, because the legal theory turns on the timing of data collection rather than the existence of a privacy notice. Vendor Contracts: The Hidden Exposure Marketing and technology agreements are another major source of unmanaged data risk. When a company deploys a third-party tool that handles personal data, the underlying contract needs to define precisely who owns that data, what the vendor is permitted to do with it, and what obligations flow down to any sub-processors involved. McGinnis draws a direct parallel to IP licensing: owning valuable data and then handing it to a vendor under a poorly drafted agreement is the equivalent of signing a bad IP license. Data processing agreements need to cover ownership, use restrictions, sub-processor obligations, breach notification timelines, audit rights, and deletion obligations. Many companies simply do not have these terms in place. Without them, a vendor who suffers a breach of non-personal business information has no contractual obligation to disclose it. Consumer Rights Requests: Process Matters Privacy laws give individuals the right to access, correct, delete, and opt out of the use of their personal data. Responding to these requests effectively requires pre-built processes, trained staff, and the technical ability to locate and act on individual data across all systems and sub-processors. Most companies, before engaging in formal data mapping, are not in a position to do this reliably. Staff failing to recognize a deletion request as a legal data subject request and routing it through a standard customer service queue instead is one of the most common failures McGinnis sees. The consequences can include regulatory complaints and class action lawsuits, particularly when a company continues to send emails to someone who has already requested deletion of their data. A newer risk involves Global Privacy Controls: browser-level opt-out signals that regulators and courts are now treating as legally binding deletion and non-collection requests. Companies receiving these signals daily without acting on them face growing exposure under several state laws. AI Governance: Policy Before Tools Generative AI tools are now embedded across business functions, from contract review and customer service to content creation and internal search. McGinnis is direct: every company needs an AI acceptable-use policy, and the absence of one is not a neutral position. Without clear rules, employees will use unapproved or publicly available tools regardless, feeding proprietary and sensitive information into open models with no control over how that data is used or retained. He draws a precise parallel to patent law. Posting proprietary information into an open AI system carries the same risk as publishing it publicly, potentially destroying patentability. The distinction between closed, organization-specific AI systems and open, publicly accessible ones is something employees need to understand explicitly. Making compliance easier than non-compliance is the practical goal. The Regulatory Outlook: More Laws, More Enforcement McGinnis expects the regulatory landscape to continue expanding. The EU AI Act is already setting the direction, and several US states have introduced or are developing AI-specific legislation. The pattern mirrors what happened with data privacy: Europe leads, US states follow in a patchwork, and federal legislation remains uncertain. Enforcement of existing privacy laws is also intensifying. GDPR has been in force since 2018, CCPA since 2020, and regulators are now past the period of extended tolerance for companies that are still catching up. Companies with immature compliance programs should expect less patience from regulators going forward. McGinnis closes with a clear point of view: if you have to comply anyway, get credit for it. A well-built governance program is a trust signal to customers, a sales asset, and a foundation for responsible AI use. Compliance done right is not a tax. It is a differentiator. The Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Our guest today on the IP Fridays podcast is Brian McGinnis. Brian is a partner with Barnes and Thornburg and a founding member and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy law practice group. Brian serves as a member of the intellectual property department and the internet and technology practice. Brian is a Chambers Global and national ranked privacy and data security attorney, a certified information privacy professional, and the firm’s chief privacy officer. Brian brings nearly two decades of experience at the intersection of law and technology. Brian advises on a wide range of technology-driven legal matters, including privacy and data security, intellectual property, artificial intelligence, corporate transactions, software, and internet law. His deep understanding of privacy and technology law enables him to guide clients through rapidly evolving regulatory and operational challenges. Welcome Brian to the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Hey, thanks Ken. I appreciate it. Great to be here and thanks for having me. Ken Suzan: Excellent. Brian, the C-suite tends to treat data privacy as a compliance tax, something to hand off to legal and forget about. But when you see how companies actually get into serious trouble, what’s really going on? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, well, it’s a great place to start Ken and looking forward to the conversation today covering some of these privacy issues and AI issues, which I found in my own practice is really bled into the straight privacy stuff. Companies can’t really handle these things in a silo anymore. It’s really about managing and coming together as a coherent program for governance for the organization. I think if you do that right, the good news is we can become revenue generators and show growth for the company and not just compliance centers and a compliance tax. But I think the core problem that we face in working with most companies is that a lot of companies still treat their data as invisible, costless. They don’t treat it, in other words, like they would a patent portfolio or trademark or other IP portfolio. It’s just not managed as an asset in the ways that we’ve seen more sophistication around IP. And it really should be. Data is either a managed asset for the company or it’s an unmanaged liability. There’s really not an in between. And so for those companies that haven’t gotten their arms around all this data and what can be done with it, I think they’re really missing an opportunity. Having an understanding of what data the organization is collecting, how it’s being used, and having the proper governance around it really unlocks a lot of opportunity for use of that data in new ways — ways that can drive revenue and growth for the company. So I approach privacy not just about compliance, not just about avoiding penalties or doing it because some law out there says that we have to do it. It’s really about knowing and controlling one of the company’s core assets. And if you’re not doing that, you’ve got unmanaged data that you’re not getting value out of and that potentially could be a huge liability for the company. Managed well, it really supports trust, efficiency, and growth of the organization. Otherwise, I think it’s a missed opportunity. Ken Suzan: Yes, well said. Now let’s talk about state laws. With 20-plus state privacy laws now in effect, how should companies build a program that actually works across the board without starting over every time a new state law kicks in? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so the first answer is don’t build 20 separate programs. This really goes back to having a comprehensive, sophisticated, well thought out program that really takes into account not only the 20 state laws, but obviously we’ve got international exposure with laws like GDPR and upcoming privacy laws internationally. Most of the larger economies in the world have some form of laws around privacy and AI. So you can’t really anymore build programs that account for the one, two, three, four, five different laws that in the past we had experience with — where you could just treat California as its own thing, treat New York as something else, and treat Europe as something else. The laws and the pace of these have really forced companies into having comprehensive programs. I don’t expect to see fewer laws. You’re only looking at potentially additional state laws, additional federal laws here in the US, and then certainly additional laws throughout the world. So a lot of the strategy these days is not only where are we today with these laws, but how do we set up our governance program in a way that really cuts to the core of the purpose and intent behind these laws so that we can be better prepared when new laws come about in the future. Historically, at least in the US, most companies just haven’t had laws that force them into compliance postures. As these laws have started to come along, a lot of companies have been playing from behind and saying, oh, the California Consumer Privacy Act, I just read about it and it goes into effect next week — let’s throw something together and call that our compliance program. We’ve now got years of these laws being in place, CCPA came into effect in 2020, and what we’re seeing much more of are companies looking to get more sophisticated in their programs and stop feeling like they’re always rushing to catch up. The goal is to level up their program, going from level one — constantly playing from behind — to level two and then level three, so that they really feel like they’re on top of it and have a sophisticated program that not only accounts for all the various privacy requirements that come at them, but also positions them to take advantage of the data and all the things that come along with having a good governance program. Ken Suzan: Brian, there’s an explosion of litigation targeting something most companies barely think about — the tracking tools baked into their own websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, chat widgets, the list goes on and on. What’s happening, Brian, and what should companies do? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, and I think a lot of companies — the executives, the business teams — don’t even realize a lot of these tools are on their sites. IT deployed them years ago, the web team deployed them, marketing teams are constantly using them and certainly have a good understanding of it. But in a lot of cases, legal has never touched them and has no idea what’s happening on the website. We also see a lot of cases of companies who, even if they’re generally aware these tools are in use, aren’t aware what other teams are putting on the site or what those pieces of technology are tracking. And that gap can be really expensive. What we’re seeing right now — and this has been a trend for a number of months now and is really continuing to pick up steam — is a series of what I call gotcha lawsuits, where you have some enterprising plaintiffs’ counsel who have taken a look at some 1970s-era telephone wiretapping laws, including a law called CIPA, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, passed in the 70s with the idea that you shouldn’t be able to wiretap people’s telephone conversations. They’ve taken that and applied that theory to the internet. The way it works is: if a website has some sort of cookie, pixel, or other tracking technology on it that collects personal information about an individual — and that can be as simple as an IP address and device ID — and if that collection occurs as soon as the individual shows up at the website, prior to them being able to have notice provided to them or opt in and consent to that collection, then the theory under these lawsuits is that it constitutes wiretapping. We see a lot of this with the Meta pixel, with LinkedIn pixels, and the like. What they’re doing is effectively showing up and suing, threatening to sue, trying to take you to arbitration, depending upon what’s included in the company’s existing privacy notice. If you don’t have a cookie banner, if you don’t have a cookie notice, if you’re not getting opt-in on these things, they’re leaning on those failures and effectively trying to force you into a position where you are forced to make a settlement. Because the cost to litigate one of these to their conclusion would be expensive, whereas a lot of these cases will settle for $10,000 to $15,000 somewhere in that range. They’ve got technology crawling the internet looking for websites that don’t have these risks covered, sending demand letters and then collecting settlements, $10,000 to $20,000 at a time. It’s been very profitable for them and a very dangerous thing for our clients. And it’s a bit unusual because you can be fully compliant with the statutory privacy laws that require notification of the use of tracking technologies and cookies and banners — and still be subject to these lawsuits because of the wiretapping arguments being made. The timing wherein the data is collected from the individual could still subject you to these lawsuits. So it’s a tricky problem, one that I hate seeing companies get hit with and one that we spend a lot of time helping companies avoid. Ken Suzan: Yes, let’s talk about contracts, Brian, because I know you work with contracts probably on a daily basis. A lot of data risk lives inside vendor and technology agreements — the contracts companies sign with marketing platforms, analytics providers, cloud infrastructure, and SaaS tools. What should those agreements actually contain? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so there’s quite a lot of things. You’ve got a world where marketing is constantly under pressure to learn more about their customers. The way they can do that is through any number of different tools and data gathering techniques, and we have all this technology available to help marketing and sales do better at their jobs. But we, at least in this country, got to a position where people really felt like they lost control of their information and their data. And so these privacy laws came along and really started to provide more rights to individuals — to have an understanding of what data exists within various companies that they do business with, who they’re sharing it with, trading it with, selling it to for advertising purposes; to have the right to opt out; the right to delete their information. Not checking through the agreements by which these teams are implementing these tools is a huge issue for companies. As part of an overall compliance program, having some kind of process where people who are aware of the growing numbers of privacy laws are reviewing these marketing contracts to make sure they are aligned with that program and aligned with those laws is absolutely critical. To talk about IP, given the IP Fridays audience: it’s kind of the equivalent of having really bad IP licenses. In other words, you own and control this information and data, and you need to control what the other side can do with one of your most valuable assets — or you’ve effectively given it away. So thinking about it in that way could be useful. In terms of more specifics: a big one is ownership of the data. The agreement itself may or may not have anything that addresses data. If there’s personal information involved, you probably need what we call a data processing agreement or addendum — a DPA — that specifically controls what that third party is able to do with that data, how they’re able to use it, whether they’re able to share it, whether they’re able to get value out of it on their own, or if they’re only allowed to be what we call a service provider, just providing services to the business that hired them. There needs to be explicit prohibition on retaining, using, and disclosing personal information for any purpose other than performing the exact services in the contract. Whether or not they’re permitted to sell or share data under CCPA terms is another key point. Certification that the provider will comply with any restrictions and security requirements you have on your data, and making sure those obligations flow down to any sub-processors they might use. You hire Company A, but Company A works with Company B and C to provide parts of their service. You’re effectively responsible for the protection of personal information throughout its lifecycle. A couple of other key provisions: breach notification triggers and timeline. It’s very possible under a lot of agreements that one of your vendors can suffer the world’s worst hacker breach and have no legal obligation to tell the company that hired them about it — unless there’s personal information involved. State data breach laws apply to personal information, not to other types of sensitive business information. Unless you have a contract that explicitly requires notification, there’s a good chance that vendor may not want to disclose it. And then other things like audit rights and deletion obligations go in there as well. Ken Suzan: Certainly a lot to cover. Let’s talk about privacy laws and consumer rights. Privacy laws give consumers real rights — to access their data, correct it, delete it, and opt out of how it’s being used. Most companies have a process for this on paper. What does it actually take to get it right, and what happens when it breaks down? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, it takes pre-planning. It takes a process. Some companies receive many more of these requests than others — some B2B companies receive none or a couple per year, while companies heavily involved in marketing to consumers might receive tens or hundreds a day. To be able to respond to these effectively and efficiently requires some forethought. It requires policy and procedure internally to be set up, and it requires the education of the team. Some of the common ways we see this go wrong: staff isn’t trained to know the difference between what we call a DSR — data subject request — versus a regular customer service inquiry. Maybe somebody submits what would be construed by law to be a deletion request and you just put it into your normal customer service response flow — and then you’re potentially missing timelines and the like. There also need to be systems in place to respond in accordance with the individual’s rights. Somebody submits a request saying, you have my information — what information do you have about me? Can your company determine that right now? Can you look through all your systems and down the line to all the processors and sub-processors you’ve worked with and hired, and identify what information you have about that individual? Most companies, until they engage in a governance program and data mapping, are at a real disadvantage to be able to do that. Why is that a problem? Because two weeks from now your company could be sending emails to the individual who just told you to delete their data, and they get really upset. That’s when they go and complain to regulators or start class action lawsuits. The lack of planning can be really, really expensive for a lot of companies. Making sure you’ve got some kind of process to understand what’s coming in, that the people receiving those requests know the difference between a regular customer service request and a data subject request, and that it gets to the appropriate parties for action — all of that is really, really key. Another one that we’re seeing pop up is what we call GPC, or Global Privacy Controls. It used to be that people would say “do not track” in their browser and most companies would ignore those signals. Now we’ve got advancements in law and browser technology where the browser you’re using to visit a company’s website sends a signal saying, opt me out of this. Regulators and courts are construing those as deletion requests, as opt-out requests that companies are now required to respond to. If your company hasn’t gone through an exercise to understand that, and is probably receiving GPC opt-out requests on a daily basis without acting on them, there’s some exposure there. At the end of the day, a lot of this really is about getting the appropriate people from across the organization — really each department — around a table, figuring out what data you collect, how you use it, who you share it with, where it comes from. That starts the process of your data map. Then you set about mapping that to the various legal requirements and figuring out how to respond, how to make it easy for people to exercise their rights so they’re not complaining, not suing, not going to regulators. Letting these squeaky wheels out of the process — the ones who don’t want you to be processing their information any longer — is really key. Ken Suzan: Let’s switch gears a bit and talk about AI. I know we’re hearing about it every day. Generative AI tools are now embedded in how companies work — contract review, customer service, content creation, internal search. Before employees start using these tools with customer data, confidential business information, or proprietary content, what has to be in place first? Brian McGinnis: Yeah. I think we’re long past the days when companies provided individuals access to corporate technology — computers, devices, and the like — without having some kind of acceptable use policy that governs that. We don’t want you downloading stuff that could harm our network or create security issues. We don’t want you using our technology in certain ways, whether that’s a BYOD policy or just general use of company internet or company devices. An AI acceptable use policy is really a continuation of those. Every company needs to have an AI acceptable use policy. Period. In my opinion, things like that are as important as the fire escape policy out in the hallways for these companies. I can tell you with absolute certainty: if your organization has not provided rules to your employees and personnel about the use of AI, what they can and can’t use — or if you’ve said you can’t use any AI — the personnel is still using AI. They’re just not using any approved tools. They’re probably using their own private tools that they subscribe to, or even worse, tools they don’t pay for, in which case they’re putting company information into a wide open public model. The more companies can do to think through this ahead of time, reduce it to policy, and then train and educate people on that company’s particular policy, the better. You need to make it easier for people to comply than not comply. An acceptable use policy should talk about: here’s how we can and can’t use it, here’s the data that should and should not go into the system, here’s some proper uses of AI, here’s some data that’s on the fringe that we need to keep out — more sensitive information, proprietary information, etc. Making sure you’re funneling and educating people about the difference between closed systems and open systems. In other words, this is a tool that only looks at our organization, only uses the data within a certain box, and is not publicly available — the AI system is not training on our data. You have more leeway to put more sensitive information into those types of systems than you do with open systems which potentially lose control of your data. It’s almost like a patent consideration in terms of keeping information secret. If something potentially has some patentability that you want to seek to file in the future, you can’t just go out and post it publicly and use public search engines and all this other stuff at the risk of exposing it. Similar concepts here — really getting a handle and control over what tools people can use and providing some education to them about how the company wants to think about what’s acceptable and what’s not in those uses is really the key starting point. Ken Suzan: Very useful information. Indeed, we’re coming towards the end of today’s episode. One final question for you, Brian. Where do you think we’ll be two years from now in this developing field, and how best for companies to stay ahead of the curve? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, this kind of takes us full circle, Ken. I think it’s kind of back to the beginning comments about the privacy space — and we’ve only got more of these laws coming. It’s still a developing field. We’re still really in the early days of enforcement. I mean, GDPR has been around since 2018, CCPA in the US really kicked us off in about 2020, and so there’s been a settling-in period as companies adjust and get used to having these laws and get compliance programs in place at various levels — from not at all prepared to highly sophisticated. We’re still pretty early on in terms of enforcement of these things. We’re already starting to see enforcement of more egregious violations of these various laws, and we’ll only continue to see more enforcement as the laws exist currently and as they continue to come along. The days of not having to pay attention to this are kind of over. And I always tell clients: if you’re going to have to do these things, you’re going to have to be compliant — you might as well get credit for it. By which I mean, let’s put all the policies in place, let’s do all the compliance activities, let’s have a sophisticated governance program, but then let’s also use that as a sales tool, as a way to help grow the company, as a way to sell new products and gain trust and earn trust with our customers — so that they know when they’re doing business with us, or when they’re giving us information, or when they’re using our AI tool, that we respect that and are going to take care of their information and have the structure in place internally to be able to do that. With respect to AI, what I’m seeing is very similar to what we have seen with the growth of privacy law — again led by Europe, with the EU AI Act in this case. Now you’ve got a handful of states in the US that already have AI laws, and others that are interested in continuing to roll those out. There’s friction with the federal government around whether there’s going to be a comprehensive law there. Like the privacy space, you’ve got varying factions — some of which want to develop really quickly with very little guardrails, others which say we’re threatening the future of humanity if we don’t get those guardrails in place. I think ultimately, at least in the US, we’re going to end up with another patchwork of AI laws for the foreseeable future that we’ll have to navigate. So really having a company position, a company philosophy of how do we handle all these various laws, how do we treat people’s data, how do we get our arms around it, how do we respond to whatever legal rights they currently have, and what principles do we put in place so that we can adapt for the future — and then, once we’ve done those things, how do we actually get value out of this and move the business forward. So it’s not a compliance tax, but a benefit to the business. That’s the end goal here, and I think the North Star for us. Ken Suzan: Fantastic, Brian. This has certainly been a very comprehensive interview. Really appreciate you taking the time to talk about it with us here on the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Happy to do it, Ken. Thanks for asking me and good to see you. Thank you.

Here's something people don't often mention: As a plaintiffs' attorney, you can work side by side with government litigators, taking on some of the most important issues in the country. Case in point, today's guest: June Pineda Hoidal. June is a managing partner of Zimmerman Reed. The Minneapolis-based firm collaborates with public entities, and has fought back against the opioid epidemic, major polluters, and the Trump administration, just to name a few. June unpacks what it's like to bring government cases from within a private firm. Later, Spencer sits down with 2L Marissa Lambert for a check-in on finals and the upcoming summer.Suggestions for topics? Questions for our guests? Email the show at Spencer@CauseOfActionPodcast.com.Learn more about plaintiffs' law from the National Plaintiffs' Law Association. Additional details on the NPLA's Linktree.

John is joined by Shon Morgan and Jack Baumann, both partners in Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles office. They discuss the growing legal tension surrounding the aggregation and commercialization of publicly available information. It focuses on when compiling public data into structured, searchable databases creates a protectable property interest, and when such activity exposes companies to legal risk.One recent series of cases involves disputes over whether entities that invest substantial resources to digitize, index, and organize public records may prevent others from accessing and reusing that enhanced data. In these cases, courts often recognize a distinction between underlying public records, which remain freely accessible, and value-added compilations created through private investment, which may be entitled to protection.A team led by Jack recently won one of these cases on behalf of Ancestry.com, a genealogy company that invested heavily in digitizing and organizing historical public records. Ancestry partnered with state records archives to convert paper and microfiche records into digital formats, adding searchable indexes and metadata that transformed otherwise difficult to use materials into accessible databases. Although the underlying records remained public and available to anyone willing to retrieve them manually, the company's financial and technical investments significantly enhanced the utility of these public records.The dispute arose when an individual sought to obtain not the original public records, but the company's digitized and indexed versions, through a public records request for Ancestry's work directed at one state's archive. The request effectively attempted to appropriate the company's value-added work product without incurring the costs required to create it. An administrative body initially ruled that the materials should be disclosed, reasoning that the company had acted as an extension of the government in performing a public function. On appeal, however, a higher tribunal rejected that view, concluding that the digitized and organized database was materially different from the original records and not subject to compulsory disclosure.A second series of cases have been brought by individuals whose personal information appears in these searchable databases such as ZoomInfo, Spokeo, or Whitepages.com. Plaintiffs in these cases often assert privacy or right of publicity claims, arguing that even if the data originated from public sources, companies should not profit from compiling and monetizing that data without their consent. Although many of these claims face challenges similar to claims in data breach cases, especially in demonstrating actual harm or the inherent value of ordinary personal information. Some courts have allowed these cases to proceed past the dismissal stage, creating significant potential exposure for companies due to the prospect of class-wide liability and statutory damages.While raw public data remains freely accessible, significant private investment in organizing and enhancing that data may often generate a protectable interest. However, individuals may argue that while their information may be publicly available, they never agreed that third parties could profit from it. This tension remains unsettled and will likely evolve as courts confront similar disputes in other contexts involving large-scale data aggregation.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

On today's episode, Boston College 2L Marissa Lambert sits down with Angie Pati and Jonathan Koehler, law students at NYU and Rutgers. Angie and Jonathan discuss the ideals that brought them to law school, and how those values are leading them to careers on the plaintiff side. They detail the networking strategies that helped them find jobs, and Jonathan shares his secret for how to study for law school while you're asleep.Suggestions for topics? Questions for our guests? Email the show at Spencer@CauseOfActionPodcast.com.Learn more about plaintiffs' law from the National Plaintiffs' Law Association. Additional details on the NPLA's Linktree.

Benjamin Torres lost his mother when he was six years old. Valerie Mack disappeared in 2000. Her dismembered remains were found in Manorville that same year and went unidentified for two decades. Rex Heuermann has now pleaded guilty to her murder. But for Torres, the admission that ended the criminal case opened something else entirely — a wrongful death lawsuit naming Heuermann, his ex-wife Asa Ellerup, and their daughter Victoria as defendants.The complaint alleges the two women knew about or concealed the crimes, lived with access to a secured vault-like room in the basement of the Massapequa Park home, and collected over a million dollars from a Peacock documentary. Plaintiff's attorney John Ray has argued publicly that the family could not have been unaware in a house of roughly 1,300 square feet. Hair evidence linked to both Ellerup and Victoria was recovered from victims' remains. Prosecutors have attributed that to ordinary household transference. Ray frames it as evidence of proximity.The defense response has been aggressive. Ellerup's attorney called the suit reckless and completely unsupported by the facts. Victoria was approximately three when Mack was killed. Prosecutors have maintained consistently that Heuermann acted alone and timed his crimes for when the family was away. Neither woman has been charged.Asa called Heuermann her savior. She maintained she would have known if something was wrong. Victoria sat in the courtroom during the plea and has publicly said she believes her father most likely committed the killings. Psychotherapist Shavaun Scott examines the psychology behind that split — how denial functions inside a family where one person's identity is built entirely around the other, and what happens when a guilty plea collapses the framework that held "not knowing" in place.Criminal defense attorney Bob Motta breaks down the legal mechanics of the plea itself. Every pre-trial motion failed — the DNA challenge, the motion to sever the cases, the 178-page omnibus motion. Whole genome sequencing was admitted in a New York courtroom for the first time. A deleted planning document was recovered from Heuermann's hard drive. The sentence — life without parole — was reportedly identical whether he went to trial or pled. So what did the plea actually accomplish? Motta examines what the defense calculated, what the families lost when the plea replaced testimony, and what open cases along the Gilgo corridor still need answers. Heuermann has agreed to cooperate with the FBI.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#RexHeuermann #GilgoBeach #ValerieMack #AsaEllerup #VictoriaHeuermann #LISK #WrongfulDeath #ShavaunScott #BobMotta #HiddenKillers

Asa Ellerup called Rex Heuermann her savior. Their daughter Victoria sat in a packed Suffolk County courtroom and watched him plead guilty to killing eight women. Asa has maintained she would have known if something was wrong. Victoria has publicly said she believes her father most likely committed the killings. A mother and daughter inside the same house, the same marriage, the same nightmare — arriving at opposite conclusions. That split is the story.Benjamin Torres — the son of victim Valerie Mack, who was six when his mother vanished in 2000 — has filed a wrongful death lawsuit naming both women alongside Heuermann. The complaint alleges they knew about or concealed the crimes, had access to a secured vault-like room in the basement of the Massapequa Park home, and collected over a million dollars from a Peacock documentary. Plaintiff's attorney John Ray has argued the family could not have been unaware in a house of roughly 1,300 square feet. Hair evidence linked to both Ellerup and Victoria was recovered from victims' remains. The defense has called the suit reckless. Victoria was approximately three when Mack was killed. Prosecutors maintain Heuermann acted alone. Neither woman has been charged.Psychotherapist and author Shavaun Scott breaks down the psychology of "not knowing" — how the mind constructs barriers to protect an identity that's built around another person, why someone whose entire framework depends on the marriage being real may be neurologically incapable of processing contradictory evidence, and what a guilty plea does to the psychological architecture that held denial in place for decades.Criminal defense attorney Bob Motta examines the plea mechanics. Every pre-trial motion had failed. Whole genome sequencing was admitted for the first time in a New York courtroom. A deleted planning document was recovered from Heuermann's devices. The sentence — life without parole — was reportedly the same whether he went to trial or pled. Motta walks through what the defense calculated, what Karen Vergata's uncharged murder being folded into the deal means for accountability, and what the FBI cooperation agreement actually requires. Open cases along the Gilgo corridor remain unresolved. The criminal chapter is closed. The civil and psychological ones are just beginning.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#RexHeuermann #GilgoBeach #AsaEllerup #VictoriaHeuermann #ValerieMack #HiddenKillersLive #ShavaunScott #BobMotta #LISK #WrongfulDeath

In this third installment of our series on examination techniques, Jim Garrity dives into the so-called Reptile Method, developed by jury consultant David Ball and plaintiff's attorney Don Keenan, and explained in their 2009 book Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiff's Revolution. It's long been a controversial approach because, some say, it's a disguised version of Golden Rule arguments that are generally forbidden in most jurisdictions. But whether you're on the plaintiff side looking to deploy it or the defense side looking to neutralize it, you need to understand how the three-stage sequence works, and where it's vulnerable.SHOW NOTEShttps://columbialawreview.org/content/shadow-tort-law-lessons-from-the-reptile/ (Columbia University law review article on "The Reptile" method)https://lewisbrisbois.com/insights/clientalerts/the-reptile-theory-in-practice (defense firm blog on the Reptile Theory)https://imslegal.com/articles/reptile-brain-strategy-why-use-it-how-counter-it (jury consulting firm article on the Reptile Method)

A group of Jeffrey Epstein survivors has filed a lawsuit against billionaire Les Wexner, the Wexner Foundation, and associated entities, alleging they enabled Epstein's abuse and trafficking operation. The suit, filed in New York, includes multiple plaintiffs from several states who claim they were subjected to gender-motivated violence by Epstein. Central to the allegations is the claim that Wexner provided Epstein with significant financial backing—allegedly totaling around $200 million over years—which allowed Epstein to build and sustain his network. The complaint also points to Wexner's former Manhattan townhouse, arguing it served as a key location where abuse occurred.The lawsuit further argues that Wexner's long-standing relationship with Epstein—including granting him power of attorney over his finances—created the conditions that enabled Epstein's crimes. Plaintiffs claim that without that financial support and access, Epstein would not have been able to operate at the scale he did. Wexner has denied the allegations, stating he had no knowledge of Epstein's wrongdoing and that the claims lack factual basis, insisting the money provided was for legitimate financial management services. The case adds to growing scrutiny of Wexner's role and raises broader questions about how Epstein's network was funded and sustained for so long.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein survivors sue Les Wexner and Wexner Foundation | KXAN Austin

Everything you've been told about being a lawyer might be wrong. The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 261 features William "Bill" T. Reid, senior founding partner of Reid Collins & Tsai LLP, one of the nation's leading plaintiff-side commercial litigation firms. Bill is the author of Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiffs' Law - a bold, straight-talking book that challenges the traditional path pushed by law schools and reframes what it means to build a successful legal career. More than just a career guide, the book is a call to think critically about purpose, impact, and the kind of lawyer you actually want to become. In this episode, we focus on the ideas behind Fighting Bullies - from the realities of BigLaw and the limitations of the billable hour model, to why plaintiffs' law offers a path that combines meaningful work with real opportunity. Bill shares insights from decades of high-stakes litigation and explains why young lawyers should rethink how they define success. Bill is also an adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Law, where he teaches Complex Financial Litigation and continues to mentor the next generation. This is a conversation about purpose, perspective, and choosing a path that actually aligns with who you are. This episode presented by CallRail Integrated into your case management system, CallRail helps you: Capture every call - even after hours Spot high-value leads instantly Respond faster Get the insights you need to bring in bigger cases Join over 3,000 law firms using CallRail to follow up faster, land bigger cases, and drive growth for your firm. Start your free trial at https://www.callrail.com/legal-services?utm_medium=influencer&utm_source=lawyer-stories

A jury convicted Google and social media giant, Meta, of failing to do enough to prevent the harmful effects of their projects on children. Plaintiffs, including several tribes, argued children too young to be on social media platforms are subjected to bullying and suffer poor self-esteem because of content they encounter online. At the same time, retailers are able to strip personal information from young people—and others who use social media. Does social media have any redeeming value? We'll find out what might change in light of the recent legal decision. Break 1 Music: Current (song) Chuck Copenace (artist) Oshki Manitou (album) Break 2 Music: Save the World (song) Tribz (artist) Trimmed (album)

We Like Shooting - Ep 656 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Gideon Optics (Code: WLSISLIFE) Night Fision (Code: WLSISLIFE) Die Free Co. (Code: WLSISLIFE) Rost Martin (Code: WLSISLIFE) Flatline Fiber Co (Code: WLS15) Second Call Defense Guests: David Warner – www.nextlevelarms.com www.nextlevelmfg.com Next Level Arms (@nextlevelarms)    Text Dear WLS or Reviews +1 743 500 2171  Public   Show Titles GunCon.net Tickets on sale now. Use code AGENCY171 GEAR CHAT [NickLynch] MP5 Speed Loader – Remix This is a remix of Jackmnb's speed loader designed for MP5, with the cartridge slot moved to allow dropping cartridges bullet-first from the back side. A chamfer has been added to facilitate faster and easier filling of the loader. Angles have been modified to enable printing without supports. Note MP5 Mag loader [Benelli] Lupo The Benelli Lupo is a bolt-action rifle highlighted in the ‘Art of Performance' video series for its proprietary barrel engineering. It features a three-step manufacturing process including vacuum heat treatment, electrochemical rifling, and cryogenic Crio treatment to achieve superior accuracy and consistency. The rifle's rigid chassis and harmonized action ensure minimal flex, precise alignment, and out-of-box performance. [Infinite Zero Targets] Rifle Zeroing Targets Infinite Zero Targets provides free printable rifle zeroing targets designed for precise firearm sighting. The page promotes these paper targets alongside the Ballistics Report app for ballistic calculations. No hardware technical gear such as optics or mechanical devices is detailed. Note (Nick) Sig P229 BULLET POINTS GUN FIGHTS No one stepped into the arena this week. GOING BALLISTIC Colorado HB 26-1144: Democrats Amend 3D-Printed Firearms Bill to Avoid Veto Colorado House Bill 1144 (HB 26-1144) targets the use of 3D printers to manufacture guns or gun parts, making it a crime in the state. Democrats revised the bill by removing a provision banning the distribution of digital printing instructions to secure passage and avoid a veto from Gov. Jared Polis. The amended version classifies first offenses as Class I misdemeanors and subsequent offenses as Class 5 felonies. Heeter v. James: Challenge to New York's Body Armor Ban Under the Second Amendment Heeter v. James is a federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York challenging New York's body armor ban under the Concealed Carry Improvement Act as a Second Amendment violation. Plaintiffs argue body armor qualifies as an ‘arm' for self-defense, supported by historical precedents like Heller and Bruen, common civilian use, and lack of historical bans. The ban prohibits purchase, acquisition, or sale of protective body coverings by non-eligible civilians, with enforcement by state police. National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Letitia James: SAF Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court to Protect Firearms Industry under PLCAA The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with NRA and Independence Institute, filed an amicus brief on March 30, 2026, in National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Letitia James, challenging New York's law that circumvents the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). SAF argues that New York's statute enables abusive public nuisance lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and dealers, undermining PLCAA's protections against meritless litigation campaigns aimed at bankrupting the industry. The brief urges the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reaffirm PLCAA's safeguards for lawful commerce and Second Amendment rights. Colorado House Bill 1144: 3D Gun Printing Ban Drops Digital Instructions Provision to Avoid Veto (Savage) Colorado's House Bill 1144 originally aimed to ban the manufacture of 3D printed guns and components like high-capacity magazines and receivers, as well as the sale or distribution of digital instructions for printing them. Lawmakers removed the provision on digital instructions after Gov. Jared Polis indicated he would veto the bill otherwise. The amended bill passed a preliminary Senate vote and is expected to be signed into law. Warren-Meeks Letter Demands Data on U.S. Semi-Automatic Firearm Export Licenses (Savage) U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY) sent a letter to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security requesting detailed data on semi-automatic firearm export licenses approved since January 2025. They cite ATF data linking U.S. exports to 20% of crime gun traces in Central America and 37% worldwide outside North America, demanding info on licenses, recipients, and monitoring by April 13, 2026. This follows Biden administration pauses on certain exports and Warren's recent legislation targeting ammunition sales and military-grade weapons. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson: Pro-Gun Control Policies with $30 Million Taxpayer-Funded Armed Security (Savage) Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson supports Illinois' restrictive gun control measures, including a ban on assault-style weapons upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2023, while employing an armed security detail of up to 150 Chicago Police Department officers. This security costs taxpayers approximately $30 million annually. The arrangement highlights a perceived double standard where officials enjoy armed protection amid public firearm restrictions. Rep. Fry Files Amicus Brief in NSSF v. James Seeking SCOTUS Review to Defend Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) (Savage) Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC), leading 54 House colleagues, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) with Senate colleagues, filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit's decision in NSSF v. James. The brief defends the PLCAA, a 2005 federal law preempting state liability suits against gun manufacturers for criminal misuse of firearms, against New York's public nuisance law. It argues the Second Circuit ruling undermines congressional intent and enables similar state circumventions. Armed Citizen Fights Off Attackers at Arundel Mills Mall, Hanover, Maryland (Savage) On March 28, 2026, an armed citizen at Arundel Mills Mall in Hanover, Maryland, drew a firearm during an assault by three attackers outside Burlington Coat Factory, discharging it and wounding one in the wrist. The attackers fled, leading to a police chase and crash on I-97, resulting in three arrests. The incident highlights civilian self-defense in a Maryland jurisdiction.0 Michigan Lawyer Barton Morris Helps Non-Violent Felons Restore Gun Rights via Federal DOJ Program (Savage) A Michigan lawyer, Barton Morris, assists non-violent felons who have completed their sentences in petitioning for firearm rights restoration through a proposed U.S. Department of Justice program. Michigan state law currently prohibits these individuals, such as those convicted of drug offenses, drunk driving, or theft, from owning guns post-sentence. An example is Clarence Overstreet, who filed a petition after a past cocaine possession conviction to protect his family and hunt. Calce v. City of New York Calce v. City of New York challenges New York City's ban on civilian possession of stun guns and tasers in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (docket 25-861). The district court granted summary judgment to the city in March 2025, ruling plaintiffs failed to prove common use for Second Amendment protection. Oral arguments occurred, focusing on whether ‘common use' is a plaintiff burden under Bruen or shifts to the government. Ohio SB 392: Freedom to Carry Act Ohio Senate Bill 392, introduced on March 23, 2026, seeks to reform state weapons carry laws by expanding concealed carry beyond handguns to other deadly weapons, renaming licenses to concealed weapons licenses, and lowering the licensing age from 21 to 18. It permits licensed carry of concealed deadly weapons excluding ‘exclusive deadly weapons' defined as dangerous ordnance or federally/state-prohibited items, and allows loaded firearm possession in vehicles. The bill remains in the introduced stage amid Ohio's Republican legislative supermajorities. REVIEWS Review: The 5th cast member from Oregon From The 5th cast member If I visited each of the cast members. Sean First I would ask to see vault and when he took me to the gun vault I'd say no I mean the vault of money but you don't tell the other cast members about. Then we would take some time digging through all of the boxes of gear that he has been given by sponsors of the show over the years that he's never even opened or look at. Poring me a drink of something suspicious but claim it is some sort of Old world drink to see you. Sure few drinks probably want to show me a smooth child by balls which of course would scar me for life but they're really weird part would be with his pants down asking me if I want to play some hockey. Savige He would show me all of his communist compliant guns. Which wouldn't really actually be very many. Explain to me all of the conspiracy theories around the government in the state and federal. To ask if I wanted to join him secret group that was planning the next January 6th type event only he would call it January 7th as if that was enough secret seat to avoid being obvious. I received there believing I was just been trapped by an FBI informed. Aaron Quickly after meeting Erin he would want to show me the book he's been working on “the art of working” I'm genuinely act interested not to crushes dreams of becoming some sort of Tom Clancy. Then he would give me a 2 hour tutorial on how to use indeed. Followed by a house to get fired but still get the maximum unemployment benefits. Jarami I probably meet him at his gun store first. Shoot his “Part 2 because you wouldn't let me text the whole story. Nick

Episode 283-Fighting the Gun Records Cover-up Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 283 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun lawyer, John Petrolino, Citizens Committee, New Jersey, carry permits, African American applicants, retired police officers, freedom of information, institutionalized racism, constitutional carry, national reciprocity, Second Amendment, anti-knife movement, UK gun laws, knife control. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:18 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, we are currently watching with great expectation here over a lawsuit that has been brought and filed by our good friend John Petrolino with the help and assistance of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (ccrkba.org) And what is going on here is very interesting, because John, who many of you know, does excellent reporting on firearm issues, particularly on New Jersey as well. He does great extensive coverage. Well, John was instrumental in having the permit to carry statistics getting publicized and put out there. And with it being put into the ether and made part of an awareness that otherwise really wasn’t there about the key discovery he made regarding blacks, black carry applicants. African American applicants are denied more than double their white counterparts for non-criminal reasons. Okay? Evan Nappen 01:55 And John, he requested the records seeking the statistics on retired police officer carry permits to build on the coverage of all as to who has been denied. So, remember retired police officers in New Jersey can get the RLEO, the Retired Law Enforcement Officer, Card, which in effect functions as a carry permit for retired law enforcement. Prior to the Bruen decision, where it was virtually impossible for folks to get carries, Retired Officers through the RLEO were able to get their carry in that manner. Now, of course, there’s been even more progress where LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act) also covers law enforcement and actually covers New Jersey law enforcement, which to large degree makes even needing a retired law enforcement carry not as necessary as it used to be. But still, it is something that is done, that is issued. Page – 2 – of 11 Evan Nappen 03:14 John requested through, you know, essentially New Jersey’s freedom of information to get the records so that we can continue the further analysis. And what I have here is a news release from Citizens Committee. (https://ccrkba.org/ccrkba-director-sues-nj-officials-over-denied-records-requests/) And what it says, as noted in the complaint, “Plaintiff and the public has a strong interest in ascertaining the relationship between the demographics of carry permit holders amongst the general public and retired law enforcement officers including but not limited to county location, race, sex and the effect of potentially disqualifying criteria in the application population as well as the success rate for the appeal process within the New Jersey State Police.” “Having established Petrolino was deprived of his common law right of access the New Jersey Civil Rights Act was violated, the clear remedy is injunctive relief compelling the production of the records to Petrolino . . .” It continues, “The NJSP”, meaning New Jersey State Police, “has denied countless records requests that I’ve made over the years, never fulfilling even one”, Director Petrolino said. “When I emailed them about these denials, an unnamed person at NJSP basically told me to sue them — so here we are.” Evan Nappen 04:46 That’s right. And as further noted in the news release, “Records concerning the retired police officer permits are about as public as you can get,” says Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Do they have the same level of perceived bias in their permitting statistics? Or perhaps worse yet, do they not? The public has a right to know this information. We laud Director Petrolino in his quest to hold New Jersey officials accountable by forcing them to be transparent with those they swore to serve.” Yes, it is very important that these records get out there, because the current records already show the institutionalized racism that occurs in carry permitting systems. That alone should stand for why we should have Constitutional Carry in New Jersey, where you do not need any permit, as do the majority of the United States. They have no permit required, and it is something that is not necessary, nor in full exercise of the Second Amendment. We should not even be required to need a permission slip. And this illustrates the reasons why. Because the surest way to avoid the racial discrimination, to avoid these type of coverups over records, is to not have to have the records at all, by having what is lovingly called Constitutional Carry. Evan Nappen 06:34 You may have heard there’s a bill federally being pursued to have National Constitutional Carry, which would preempt all states and make it so that any law-abiding citizen can carry without any permit anywhere in the U.S. Now, as a step in between getting to that would be national reciprocity, where every State has to at least recognize every other state’s carry permit, although the majority of states don’t even require carry permits anymore. So, this is what we’re working toward, because this is fundamental to our rights. The ability to carry, the ability to be defenders and not victims, and the fight continues. This is yet another important, very important, step in the fight. As it reveals, and has the potential to reveal, the flaws and other problems that go to bias, racism, arbitrary denials, discouragement built into the system itself. These are all the mechanisms that permitting systems are designed to create. They’re actually made to do this. They’re made to discourage. The idea that it has anything to do with public safety is, of course, a joke, and it’s proven by the Constitutional carry states that are doing just fine without the permission slip. So, in the states that have this still in place, it’s there to be a barrier to the exercise of our rights. Page – 3 – of 11 Evan Nappen 08:28 And you know, it’s kind of laughable to see the Left talk about how outrageous it is, unbelievably outrageous, how it’s Jim Crow 2.0, to require an ID to vote. To vote! That’s Jim Crow. But what goes on with carry permits, with gun licensing? Oh, that’s fine. Well, if that’s Jim Crow 2.0, gun laws are Jim Crow 2000. It’s insanity then, Okay? That’s what’s going on in that radical difference. Teddy Nappen 09:10 Honestly, Dad, it makes me think back to Shaneen Allen, where, you remember, we reached out to all the pro black groups, all the others, like bringing. Evan Nappen 09:22 Right! Teddy Nappen 09:22 They were going to put a single black mom in jail for doing nothing more wrong than. Evan Nappen 09:28 Seven years, with three and a half years minimum mandatory, was their best offer when I took on the case. Teddy Nappen 09:35 Yep, reached out to Al Sharpton’s group, the NCAA, anything? Evan Nappen 09:39 Everybody, right! Teddy Nappen 09:41 Nothing. Crickets. Evan Nappen 09:43 Crickets. Teddy Nappen 09:44 Because there is a built-in reason. These people, the Left are just Marxists. And when it comes to Marxists, they have no standards. It’s about oppressor and oppressee, and it doesn’t matter what position we must take. Because that’s how you end up with Queers for Palestine. That’s how you end up with the fact that they’re pushing actual racist gun laws. Because that is the standard. Because it has to be. No, no. We have to make sure these people are disarmed so we can keep the oppressor / oppressee mindset continuing. Sorry, we can’t side and agree with common sense issues like civil rights. Evan Nappen 10:26 And the most fundamental of all civil rights is the right to be armed. I mean, look right now at what’s going on in Iran. Gee, why haven’t the people risen up to get rid of that evil, terroristic, ruthless regime? Page – 4 – of 11 Why? They don’t have the guns. They don’t have the guns. That’s the problem. That is the big problem. And we have, as an insurance policy in America the Second Amendment, and it’s a check on tyranny. Okay? Enemies, both foreign and domestic, all right? This is why it’s there. And you can see countries that have disarmed their civilian population, and then you see what they do to them. You can see that taking place. Not just in countries as extreme as Iran, or as extreme even as North Korea, or others, what we think of as dictatorships or totalitarian states. But just look now at the U.K. and what is going on there. And Teddy, I think in Press Checks, you’re going to be talking about that, and there you can see what. I’m not going to, we’ll just put that as a little teaser. We’re going to get into that, and it’s critical. So, I want to applaud John Petrolino and Citizens Committee (CCRKBA.org) for pushing to get these records, and as we can expose the cover up. Because why? Why not release them? What is it that they’re so afraid of us finding out, right? You know, there’s something there. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. There’s something going on there, and I can’t wait to find out the truth. We will get to the truth. Evan Nappen 12:25 Hey, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a fantastic range down in Lakewood, New Jersey, where Teddy and I shoot. We got our training and certificates at WeShoot, and it’s a great resource, as well. They are having a big March Madness sale, and this sale is going until Tuesday the 31st. Here’s some of these deals in their March Madness. First of all, they have, for only $249, you can have a family membership with unlimited range access passes, priority lane assignment, 5 free guest passes, 3% instant cash back in rewards, 5% off accessories, special pricing on ammo and targets. This includes a spouse and all children under 21. This is regularly $425 for a family membership. Valid until 3/31. You can get this fantastic deal for only $249. This is a fantastic bargain. You’ll be able to access the wonderful range and all of these great benefits that WeShoot offers. So, you want to check out WeShoot in Lakewood. Go to their website, weshootusa.com. So this is a great family membership sale. Evan Nappen 14:07 They’re also offering, in the March Madness sale, 20% off all their used guns. Twenty percent off all used guns. That is a fantastic sale. You want to go there and see what great pre-loved guns are there, which you can acquire for a 20% discount. They’re also offering 10% off all Savior Range Bags and Accessories. These are, of course, the wonderful Savior products, and they are doing 10% on that for their March Madness. So, go to WeShoot and check out these great sales. You can get fantastic deals on firearms and a family membership. What a great way to have great family time, what a great family activity. Take your family to the range, enjoy a great day of shooting, and really celebrate being an American in this 250th year of our birth here in this great country. And do it at WeShoot. Evan Nappen 15:30 Let me also mention our good friends at the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. They are the stalwart defenders of our Second Amendment rights in New Jersey. They are the key group, and you need to belong to the Association. Make sure you belong. We’re going to have a bigger fight now coming up with our new governor, who will be on the same path as the old governor, being an oppressor of gun rights. You can rest assured that we’re going to be dealing with all kinds of stuff, and we’ll be talking about it on the show. But make sure you belong to the preeminent gun rights group in Page – 5 – of 11 New Jersey, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. You can join them at anjrpc.org, anjrpc.org. Evan Nappen 16:21 I must shamelessly promote my book, New Jersey Gun Law, the Bible of New Jersey gun law. Make sure you get your copy. It will help you not to become a GOFU in New Jersey. I’ve written it to protect my fellow gun owners, and you can get your copy at EvanNappen.com. Just go to EvanNappen.com and order your copy. You’ll be glad you did. It’s over 500 pages. Yeah, that’s what it takes to try to make any sense of New Jersey gun laws, and it’s all done in a question and answer format to make it as user friendly as we possibly can. Teddy, what do you have for us today? Teddy Nappen 17:12 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and I always want to look to, what would the Left do, if the Left had unfettered power? Let’s say Kamala won, the House and Senate are in their favor, and they followed James Carville’s, you know, we’re going to pack the Court. Also, you know, make Puerto Rico a state and everything that they can, so they can pass whatever agenda. What does that look like? I always will point to Canada and then much further along, the U.K. In the U.K., one of the things that has been very prevalent in their politics is there have been a heavy push of the anti-knife movement. You know, they already cracked down as hard as they possibly could on guns. Evan Nappen 18:07 So, now they need some other inanimate object to blame. Teddy Nappen 18:10 Correct! And I was looking to, okay, who is the “EveryTown” of the U.K.’s anti-knife movement? Who is the group that is pushing for all this? What is the driving force? Because there’s always some group. There’s always one. There’s always the, you know, Moms Demand Action, which is also funded by “EveryTown”. You also have Giffords. You have all these groups. Who is the one pushing for this in the U.K.? And they’re very proud of it. They admitted it on their site, “Blades Down” group. (https://bladesdown.co.uk/) It is an organization founded in the U.K. “Blades Down exists to protect young lives and strengthen communities. We work with young people and families to prevent knife crime through education, . . .” oh, propaganda, “. . . early intervention . . .” Ah, legislation to take away your rights. “. . . and practical skills.” Oh, practical skills, so you can make clear your argument for wanting to disarm your people. “By building confidence, promoting safer choices and equipping communities with life saving knowledge . . .” I love how they dress all that stuff up. And by the way, they love how they promote that we’ve removed 199 knives out of our community. Evan Nappen 19:30 199 knives. Oh, my. Okay. Teddy Nappen 19:35 Amazing. Okay. Page – 6 – of 11 Evan Nappen 19:36 A whole 199? Yeah, wow. Teddy Nappen 19:39 And I love the advertisement. I thought a knife would protect me. I didn’t know it would change everything. Evan Nappen 19:46 You know, interestingly, about knives and protection. That is the gateway self-defense tool for women, believe it or not. Studies have shown that when women want to defend themselves, and if they’re not otherwise trained in any other type of defense, they will often go first to a knife, because they are most comfortable with knives. Normally, you know, having grown up in the kitchen, etc, there’s a familiarity to a knife. So, the knife becomes the first weapon used by women, often those that are victims of domestic violence or have been victims of crime, etc. And then once they want to grow from the knife as their primary self-defense tool, they will often discover firearms, and that is very interesting. Because what the U.K. is doing is they want to ban knives. They want everyone to be defenseless, particularly women who would go to knives even first. Teddy Nappen 21:08 They saw the article about the little girl defending herself against the pedophile and. Evan Nappen 21:13 Correct! Teddy Nappen 21:14 With a knife, and they thought, right. We have to disarm the little girl to make sure the pedophile isn’t hurt. Evan Nappen 21:20 Yeah, so in the U.K., folks don’t realize, but historically, believe it or not, the modern, the modern gun ban, gun rights oppression movement actually came here from the U.K. after World War One. This had taken effect in the U.K., and the same political forces started the movement in the United States to go after guns. And originally, they were successful in going state by state, getting different states to pass gun laws. So much so that the NRA back then, I mean, they were naive. They actually had what were called the model gun laws, and they were putting out to states. This is the National Rifle Association. They put out to states what were the model gun laws that NRA wanted to see passed. It was essentially the NRA supporting gun laws. And they focused on, number one, things other than firearms. And remnants of that law going back 1920s era, back then. Evan Nappen 22:57 Those remnants are in New Jersey’s law. They actually have roots going back to what the NRA pursued back then, out of naivete. I mean, they were, you know, plainly naive about it. But this is why, and also the head of the NRA at the time was a kind of a, he was pro-oppression, pro-gun rights oppression. You know, he was always kind of a problematic guy that you would never think today would Page – 7 – of 11 be ahead of that organization. But regardless, they pushed these state model, state gun laws. And so, if you look, for example, where New Jersey had the ban on blackjacks, switchblades, slungshot, etc, this kind of thing, which then became slingshots because they didn’t know what a slungshot was. Well, that actually goes back to the model gun laws that NRA was pushing. It even contained elements for permitting, for carry and all that kind of stuff, way back. Evan Nappen 24:05 And that actually originated and came to NRA from England. It came over from the U.K., and it planted the groundwork in the States. Then what happened was it became too much with different states, not blah, blah, blah, and it went national. And by the time it went national, well, what was it? It was the NFA, the National Firearms Act. And the National Firearms Act was looked at, look, we can just get a one federal law. We don’t have to do these state laws. And that’s why, when the National Firearms Act finally passed in the form that it became, and I read through all the committee hearings, watching the NFA progress. It originally, the original NFA wanted to ban all handguns. They wanted to ban all, not just full auto, but all semi autos and full autos, and magazines over 12 rounds. That was the original, original NFA. And then through the committees, you saw them say, well, okay, what do we allow? 22 handguns. And then, okay, well, how about we keep semi-autos. And then you see, and then it finally took shape to what it is as we know it today. Evan Nappen 25:23 At the time, the NRA, in The Rifleman, you know, in the “American Rifleman” magazine, said we’ve solved the gun control problem for America, and they were proud of it. And look, I’m not doing or saying this to bash NRA. It’s not why. We’ve got to know the true history of our mistakes. Okay? And it was mistake. We see it now, plain as can be. It was plainly a mistake, but it happened. We need to recognize it, and we need to try to fix past mistakes. You know, ignoring them and putting them under the rug isn’t a good idea. So, know this history, okay? Because we don’t want to repeat this history. And yet here, Teddy, you see with knives. We don’t have, yet, in this country, an anti-knife movement in the way we have an anti-gun movement. But once they take care of getting their agenda of oppressing and disarming and disenfranchising us of gun rights, you can rest assured that it’ll be knives next. Teddy Nappen 26:28 Well, I’ll give you a worse one for you. This is something they push right now. By the way, this is out of Ellsmore Port. (https://bladesdown.co.uk/ellesmere-port-leading-the-way-with-safer-knife-swaps/a/) Leading the way for safer knife, for safer knife swaps. “Blades Down” has created a community supported with local families to do the “Let’s Be Blunt” campaign, where you can exchange your kitchen knives for safer alternatives. Literally turning in sharp knives so you can have a dull knife. If I could write a Monty Python, this would be it. You’ve heard of the Ministry of Silly Walks. Here’s the Ministry of Dull Knives. These people are retarded with the things that they are actually pushing for. Literally the Ministry of Dull Knives. Evan Nappen 27:19 That’s the best! Page – 8 – of 11 Teddy Nappen 27:20 Dull knives. Evan Nappen 27:22 Okay, listen, man. The whole world of knives. I mean, I’m into knives as much as guns. Is what knives will stay sharpest the longest? How great an edge can you hold on the knife? Make it as sharp and sharpening his whole knives. And here, the whole effort is pushing “dull knives”. That is hilarious. Hilarious. Evan Nappen 27:43 What? Teddy Nappen 27:43 It gets even worse. Then they said, oh, we need a crackdown. They’re pushing the Government to crack down on Facebook Marketplace because people are buying kitchen knives on Facebook Marketplace without age verification. Huh? What does that sound? Quite familiar. Think of Gun Broker. Think of any other thing. This is what they do. They crack down on any forms of, you know, freedom finding a way, and by the director. And so I traced it. I went even further. Okay, who is funding this group? Who’s their Bloomberg ass group? Who is pushing for all this? Apparently, it is out of this group known as the Ben Kinsella Trust. (https://bladesdown.co.uk/facebook-marketplace-knives-being-sold-without-age-verification/) And this is the U.K. London crackdown on knives, where, you know, have pushed all the laws of trying to stop people from possessing knives. Have pushed for all the anti-knife laws. They’re the ones funding all this group. Guess who’s one of their sponsors? Facebook! Teddy Nappen 27:44 They’re literally complaining about Facebook Marketplace having that, but also Facebook is their sponsor. Evan Nappen 28:29 That’s hilarious. Well. Teddy Nappen 28:29 But this is the thing. Big tech is not your friend. They absolutely supported the Democrat Party. They are the number one funder of the Democrat movement. When it comes to rights, they do not care. So, it’s just disgusting. And remember, in the U.K. for laws, the maximum penalty for illegally carrying a knife is up to four years in State Prison. If you, quote, unquote, here’s it, “you have to have a good reason for carrying your knife.” What are the good reasons ? For your work, for religious purposes, and for a national costume. I like how that was a reason. Evan Nappen 29:36 A national costume. Yeah. Page – 9 – of 11 Teddy Nappen 29:39 Because you can’t say national, you know, like Scots carrying their Dirks. No, no, no. You can’t be too nationalistic here. And, of course, they have their rigmarole ban lists of knives that we’ve talked about. Evan Nappen 29:50 Well, you know, New Jersey’s knife ban, quote, unquote, does talk about, under subsection D, “manifest lawful purpose”, which seems to be pretty damn vague anyway. And with Bruen talking about right to defense outside the home, I think that law is ripe to be attacked. So, it’s in a way, similar, but it’s not. The problem there is on outside the home for carry. Whereas you’re exempted under other weapons, subsection D, you have an exemption under N.J.S. 2C:39-6e., to possess knives in your home. When it comes to carrying them, then you need a “manifest lawful purpose”, which is very similar to what the U.K. has. However, they’re actually going way further. They’re wanting to ban. They have the knife surrender bins. They’re actually doing a “dull your knife” campaign, stupid like that. Actually, you know, some people like you think, like, if you really hate somebody, it’s like, I’m going to slice you up with a dull knife, right? That’s even worse. But maybe that’s where they’re going. Teddy Nappen 31:09 Don’t worry. They’re doing their best cracking down on the rapes from going from 19,000 to 70,000 in the UK, because they let mass migration in from individuals who, you know, let’s just say don’t. Evan Nappen 31:22 No, no, Teddy, it’s not cause of them. It’s cause of knives. It’s because of knives. Teddy Nappen 31:25 Yeah, that’s the issue. Evan Nappen 31:26 It’s knives. Stabbings. It’s sharp knives. Sharp knives are the reason for the massive increase of rapes. If we at least have dull knives, we’ll address that issue, right? Teddy Nappen 31:40 Yeah, and the rampant stabbings are from which individuals? Sorry, we can’t report on that because that’s racist. Evan Nappen 31:46 Oh, right. So, this is one thing, though. You can still buy unregistered knives in America. You can buy knives, and there’s no permit required. Yet! There’s no place that I’m aware of anywhere in the U.S. that requires a knife permit. Now, you may think that’s outrageous. Who would? How could they ever pass a law to require you to have a permit for a knife? Well, let me tell you, right now. I have a knife permit that permits a serialized knife that was done by Russia. Russia. Soviet Union. I have the actual permit and the knife that goes with the permit. It’s just a very basic, five-inch blade hunting knife. They had knife control, knife registration, and you needed a permit. And I bet, in the U.K., they want to do something similar, right? Page – 10 – of 11 Teddy Nappen 32:54 Funny enough. That’s in their charter. That’s in the “Blades Down” charter. Demanding. Evan Nappen 32:59 There you go. How did I know? How did I guess that? Teddy Nappen 33:01 Amazing. It’s amazing. It’s almost like they don’t even hide it anymore, that they are Marxists and push Soviet styles. It’s how you have Mamdani. Evan Nappen 33:10 Exactly! Teddy Nappen 33:12 With the Government-run groceries, which I love. One of my friends, is like, it’s not Soviet because they still allow for other grocery stores. Oh, really? What do you think happens when you run up a Government grocery store? What happens to the other grocery stores? They’re gonna fold and leave. Like it’s, it’s the level of how are they this retarded? Do they not pick it up, like it’s? Evan Nappen 33:39 Well, they have an agenda, of course. But listen, the important thing is, stock up on knives. Buy as many knives as you want to and can afford. They’ll have, you’ll have all of these “no-paper knives”. Now is your golden opportunity to buy and stock up knives of all types and sizes and shapes. If you want to understand all the knife laws, well, look in my book, New Jersey Gun Laws. I do a very thorough explanation of New Jersey’s knife laws, and you can still get knives by mail. You can still possess them without any special permits or permission, and there’s no registration of knives. And here’s the kicker. Knives are still protected under the Second Amendment. It’s not the right to keep and bear guns. It’s the right to keep and bear arms. And knives are arms, as well as very utilitarian with multi purposes. They end up being pretty good investments, too, depending on what you want to collect. So, happy knife hoarding. Just shake your head when you look around at what the formerly Great Britain is doing. Evan Nappen 35:01 Hey, I want to tell you about this week’s GOFU, which is the Gun Owner Fuck Up. And we love to talk about GOFUs, because it’s actual cases, real things, where people have made mistakes. You get to learn very inexpensively, for free, what others have made costly errors regarding guns and firearms and what we care so much about. This week’s GOFU is about AI. Let me just tell you. You know, AI is interesting. It’s fun. It has a lot of potential, but don’t rely on AI for your gun law advice or for anything along those lines. If you use, you know, these AI platforms, any of this stuff, and you ask them questions, you better verify and get confirmation. Because these AI responses, they can hallucinate. They give supposedly law that isn’t even actual law. I mean, we’ve seen actual cases with clients getting into trouble because they’re relying on AI, which is, at this time, utterly unreliable. I’m not saying that it doesn’t have good uses and purpose, and it may have great things in the future, all that, all that. Page – 11 – of 11 But right now, folks. If you go to AI as your source, so that you don’t want to get into trouble under New Jersey gun law, you are making a big mistake, a big GOFU. Evan Nappen 36:52 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 37:03 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E283_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

This week, a federal judge temporarily blocked HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s overhaul of the childhood vaccine schedule and his appointments of vaccine skeptics to a key CDC advisory committee. Asha and Renato explain why agencies must follow administrative legal procedures and how RFK Jr.'s disregard for science and scientific expertise rankled the judge. Plus, they review the latest ruling from Judge James E. Boasberg, who rebuked the U.S. Attorney's office in D.C., led by former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, in its investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Renato and Asha examine how Pirro failed to meet the super low threshold of obtaining a subpoena and why the judge found the probe improperly motivated. They discuss how Boasberg's and Powell's pushback in the Trump era shows the legal system is still at work. Listen up! Memorandum and Order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction - in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Kennedyhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70722326/291/american-academy-of-pediatrics-v-kennedy/·     Memorandum Opinion – Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. United States of America https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72490330/23/in-re-grand-jury-subpoenas/ Asha Substack: https://asharangappa.substack.com/Subscribe to our podcast: https://link.chtbl.com/its-complicatedFollow Asha on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/asharangappa.bsky.socialFollow Renato on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/renatomariotti.bsky.socialFollow Asha on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asha.rangappa/Follow Renato on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/renato.mariotti/Cruise with us! https://www.travelstore.com/group-travel/its-complicated-cruise-2026/Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/@LegalAFMTN?sub_confirmation=1 Become a member of Legal AF YouTube community: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgZJZZbnLFPr5GJdCuIwpA/join Become a member of the Legal AF Substack: https://michaelpopok.substack.com/20off Follow Legal AF on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/legalafmtn.bsky.social Follow Michael Popok on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mspopok.bsky.social Subscribe to the Legal AF podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-af-by-meidastouch/id1580828595 Subscribe to the Intersection with Michael Popok podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-intersection-with-michael-popok/id1818863274 Subscribe to Unprecedented with Michael Popok and Dina Doll podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unprecedented-by-legal-af/id1867023089 Subscribe to Court of History with Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-court-of-history/id1867022920 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Pollock and Brandon Thurston go through the latest news on the WWE shareholder lawsuit and allegations of communications being deleted, plus Mark Shapiro speaks at the Morgan Stanley conference.00:00:00 Start00:03:29 WWE plaintiffs seek sanctions over deleted Signal messages00:20:23 Judge orders parties in WWE shareholder lawsuit to remove redactions00:28:17 Janel Grant and her counsel speak on behalf of bill to limit usage of NDAs00:34:43 Dr. Carlon Colker loses appeal of order to produce documents00:37:07 Mark Shapiro at Morgan Stanley Tech Conference00:52:20 Paramount+ to combine with HBO Max, UFC on TNT?01:02:55 WWE going to the Middle East01:05:30 TV & streaming numbersMusic courtesy: “Panic Beat” by Ben TramerPOST WrestlingSubscribe: https://postwrestling.com/subscribePatreon: http://postwrestlingcafe.comForum: https://forum.postwrestling.comDiscord: https://discord.com/invite/Q795HhRTwitter/Facebook/Instagram/YouTube: @POSTwrestlingBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/postwrestling.comWrestlenomicsSubscribe: https://wrestlenomics.com/podcast/Patreon: https://patreon.com/wrestlenomicsSubstack: https://wrestlenomics.substack.com/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/YouTube: @WrestlenomicsBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/wrestlenomics.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The President's House was the first home of the U.S. president in the temporary capital of Phildelphia. While George Washington lived there, he had nine enslaved people that we know of., including the cook, Hercules. Research: “George Washington to Tobias Lear, 12 April 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-08-02-0062 . [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 8, 22 March 1791 – 22 September 1791, ed. Mark A. Mastromarino. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999, pp. 84–] “President's House Civic Engagement Forum Grant Report 1.” USHistory.org. https://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/controversy/october_30_2004_report.php “Tobias Lear to George Washington, 5 June 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-08-02-0172 . [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 8, 22 March 1791 – 22 September 1791, ed. Mark A. Mastromarino. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999, pp. 231–] 1838 Black Metropolis et al. “Re: President Donald Trump’s Executive Order, ‘Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.’” 9/8/2025. https://preservationalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/NPS-Signage-Letter-9-9-25.pdf Althouse, Michela. “President's House display on George Washington's slaves remains despite White House scrutiny — for now.” Philly Voice. 9/26/2025. https://www.phillyvoice.com/george-washington-slaves-presidents-house-exhibit-trump/ Andersen, Eva. “Philadelphia advocates say key panels of slavery exhibit still missing at President's House Site.” CBS News. 2/25/2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/slavery-exhibit-philadelphia-presidents-house/ Bomar, Mary A. and Dennis R. Reidenbach. “Report on Site Review of Interpretive Programs by The Organization of American Historians.” National Park Service Independence National Historical Park. 9/8/2025. https://www.oah.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Review-of-Independence-National-Historic-Parks-interpretive-programs.pdf Cerino, Marco. “Feds detail plans for restoring President's House.” Philadelphia Tribune. 2/24/2026. https://www.phillytrib.com/news/local_news/feds-detail-plans-for-restoring-presidents-house/article_85ee7f4a-0b19-4d20-8933-951c7e2bfea0.html. Chervinsky, Lindsay M. “The Enslaved Household of President George Washington.” The White House Historical Association. 9/6/2019. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the-enslaved-household-of-president-george-washington Custis, George Washington Parke. “Recollections and private memoirs of Washington.” Philadelphia, J. W. Bradley. 1861. https://archive.org/details/recollectionspri02cust/ Evans, Dorinda. “Portrait of a Man from the Island of Dominica (?).” Thyssen-Bornemisza Museo Nacional. https://www.museothyssen.org/en/collection/artists/reynolds-circle-sir-joshua/portrait-man-island-dominica Fanelli, Doris Devine. “History, Commemoration, and an Interdisciplinary Approach to Interpreting the President's House Site.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography , Oct, 2005, Vol. 129, No. 4. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20093820 George Washington’s Mount Vernon. “A Case of Mistaken Identity.” https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/mistaken-identity George Washington’s Mount Vernon. “Hercules Posey.” https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/hercules Hinks, Peter. “A Shambles for the President's House.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies , Vol. 81, No. 2 (Spring 2014). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/pennhistory.81.2.0253 House Appropriations Committee. “H. Rept. 107-564 - DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2003.” https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/107th-congress/house-report/564 Joselow, Maxine. “Park Service Is Ordered to Take Down Some Materials on Slavery and Tribes.” 9/16/2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/climate/trump-park-service-slavery-photo-tribes.html Lawler, Edward Jr. “The President's House Revisited.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography , Oct., 2005, Vol. 129, No. 4 (Oct., 2005). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20093817 Organization of American Historians. “Statement on the Freedom and Slavery Exhibit Removal at Independence National Historical Park.” 1/24/2026. https://www.oah.org/2026/01/24/statement-on-the-freedom-and-slavery-exhibit-removal-at-independence-national-historical-park/ Preservation Alliance. “We are outraged … “ 1/22/2026. https://preservationalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/President-House-Statement-1-22-26.pdf “US national parks told to remove signs on mistreatment of Native Americans, climate, Wash Post reports.” 1/27/2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-national-parks-told-remove-signs-mistreatment-native-americans-climate-wash-2026-01-27/ Rufe, Cynthia M. “CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Plaintiff, v. DOUG BURGUM, et al., Defendants. Civil Action no. 26-434. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.648842/gov.uscourts.paed.648842.53.0.pdf Schuessler, Jennifer. “How Trump Brought the Fight Over American History to Philadelphia.” 2/5/2026. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/05/arts/george-washington-slavery-trump-history.html Smith, Dinita. “Slave Site For a Symbol Of Freedom.” New York Times. 4/20/2002. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/20/arts/slave-site-for-a-symbol-of-freedom.html Spears, Alan. “To Tell the Truth.” National Parks Conservation Association. Winter 2026. https://www.npca.org/articles/11218-to-tell-the-truth Visit Philadelphia. “The President's House: Freedom and Slavery in the Making of a New Nation.” Via YouTube. 12/14/2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPxu2z2GEcc Wiencek, Henry. "George Washington and Slavery" Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Humanities, (07 Dec. 2020). Web. 11 Feb. 2026. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/washington-george-and-slavery/ Young, Patrick. “The Signage at Manassas That Is Slated for Removal by the National Park Service.” The Reconstruction Era. 9/17/2025. https://thereconstructionera.com/the-signage-at-manassas-that-is-slated-for-removal-by-the-national-park-service/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.